I mean, if you disagree with his analysis (and granted it's a pretty quick back-of-the-napkin analysis) then by all means critique it, but calling Justin Wolfers "right wing" doesn't mean he's incorrect.
As Paul Krugman has noted, economics is a profession whose prognoses are very easily corrupted by ideology. So, there's the "fruit of the poisoned tree" aspect. I've also seen some pretty wacky stuff on the environment from them, including the de riguer Jane Fonda rant, so I know that their analyses can be distorted by their politics.
And, if you look through these, you might notice a pattern. Student loan debt seems to be more than an inconvenience in our society:
Well, okay, but even Krugman has posted some dumb things (and then recanted and/or backpedaled) on his blog. Just like with any media, you have to have a critical eye..
3 & 4. - Right, we should restructure the system where people don't have mortgages hanging over their heads to begin with.
5. He's talking politics and then saying giving money directly to the poor is a viable option.
Conclusion- this guy is an idiot.
1.) Your contention is that High School Drop Outs have faired better than College Degree holders in the last few decades?
2.) Like, below the poverty line poor? Cause I'd love to see some numbers on that. How college degree holders have a higher poverty rate...well then anybody.
Well, okay, but even Krugman has posted some dumb things (and then recanted and/or backpedaled) on his blog. Just like with any media, you have to have a critical eye..
I'm not sure anyone will buy the idea that economists are politically influenced is a "dumb thing."
3 & 4. - Right, we should restructure the system where people don't have mortgages hanging over their heads to begin with.
5. He's talking politics and then saying giving money directly to the poor is a viable option.
Conclusion- this guy is an idiot.
1.) Your contention is that High School Drop Outs have faired better than College Degree holders in the last few decades?
2.) Like, below the poverty line poor? Cause I'd love to see some numbers on that. How college degree holders have a higher poverty rate...well then anybody.
5.) It is more viable than the forgiveness plan.
1) I don't think the "typically have high incomes" applies for recent college grads.
2) You can look up the unemployed/underemployed numbers.
5) You'd never have a shot in Hell of getting a "give the poor straight money!" bill passed while a single republican law maker draws breath.
Well, okay, but even Krugman has posted some dumb things (and then recanted and/or backpedaled) on his blog. Just like with any media, you have to have a critical eye..
I'm not sure anyone will buy the idea that economists are politically influenced is a "stupid idea."
Huh? I never said that they weren't politically influenced. I'm not making that argument because it's pretty much indefensible. But just because someone has a certain political bent doesn't invalidate everything they say.
3 & 4. - Right, we should restructure the system where people don't have mortgages hanging over their heads to begin with.
5. He's talking politics and then saying giving money directly to the poor is a viable option.
Conclusion- this guy is an idiot.
1.) Your contention is that High School Drop Outs have faired better than College Degree holders in the last few decades?
2.) Like, below the poverty line poor? Cause I'd love to see some numbers on that. How college degree holders have a higher poverty rate...well then anybody.
5.) It is more viable than the forgiveness plan.
1) I don't think the "typically have high incomes" applies for recent college grads.
2) You can look up the unemployed/underemployed numbers.
5) You'd never have a shot in Hell of getting a "give the poor straight money!" bill passed while a single republican law maker draws breath.
1) So your contention really is that a college grad makes less than a high school drop out?
2) So "I sure hope my statement was true, go prove it for me!"
5) You think they're more inclined to help out those people with a strong statistical link to not voting for them? Lots of poor are while and rural and the GOP is just fine with buying them off.
Huh? I never said that they weren't politically influenced. I'm not making that argument because it's indefensible. But just because someone has a certain political bent doesn't invalidate everything they say.
No, I actually read the argument.
The basic idea is that student loan debt forgiveness is an incredibly stupid idea because it is not immediately stimulative. Maybe that's right, on the numbers, but it is a very slanted perspective on the benefits reducing that particular debt on society would have right now.
I've seen tons of numbers on student debt. It's crippling the ability of a huge portion of our educated population to buy into the economy. People are holding off on buying homes, buying vehicles and establishing families because of the debt. This problem is going to escalate, as its effects will accumulate during the lifetime of the student.
It's leading to a growing consensus that college is a bad decision - very wrong, especially based on the employment numbers. We're already seeing a dramatic decline in male students entering university. If the U.S. is going to be anything but the newest member of the Third World, we really don't want to be establishing the idea that higher education is a sucker's bet.
So, it's a broad dismissal of the idea based on a very narrow reading of the numbers. Since I've seen the Freakonomics guys do the same thing on several other politically charged issues - with their conclusions always coming down on the rightward side - I stand by my statement that they are just another group of conservative columnists hiding behind an outwardly "scientific" facade.
3 & 4. - Right, we should restructure the system where people don't have mortgages hanging over their heads to begin with.
5. He's talking politics and then saying giving money directly to the poor is a viable option.
Conclusion- this guy is an idiot.
1.) Your contention is that High School Drop Outs have faired better than College Degree holders in the last few decades?
2.) Like, below the poverty line poor? Cause I'd love to see some numbers on that. How college degree holders have a higher poverty rate...well then anybody.
5.) It is more viable than the forgiveness plan.
1) I don't think the "typically have high incomes" applies for recent college grads.
2) You can look up the unemployed/underemployed numbers.
5) You'd never have a shot in Hell of getting a "give the poor straight money!" bill passed while a single republican law maker draws breath.
1) So your contention really is that a college grad makes less than a high school drop out?
2) So "I sure hope my statement was true, go prove it for me!"
5) You think they're more inclined to help out those people with a strong statistical link to not voting for them? Lots of poor are while and rural and the GOP is just fine with buying them off.
1. We're talking about college loans, not high school drop-outs. I'm sure illegal immigrants live under a lower poverty level as well. It's a false dichotomy.
2. I don't care to prove it to you; go look it up yourself. Google is your friend.
5. You haven't been paying attention to republican ideas about welfare and entitlements, to say the least. They were voting down disaster relief for fuck's sake.
3 & 4. - Right, we should restructure the system where people don't have mortgages hanging over their heads to begin with.
5. He's talking politics and then saying giving money directly to the poor is a viable option.
Conclusion- this guy is an idiot.
1.) Your contention is that High School Drop Outs have faired better than College Degree holders in the last few decades?
2.) Like, below the poverty line poor? Cause I'd love to see some numbers on that. How college degree holders have a higher poverty rate...well then anybody.
5.) It is more viable than the forgiveness plan.
1) I don't think the "typically have high incomes" applies for recent college grads.
2) You can look up the unemployed/underemployed numbers.
5) You'd never have a shot in Hell of getting a "give the poor straight money!" bill passed while a single republican law maker draws breath.
1) So your contention really is that a college grad makes less than a high school drop out?
2) So "I sure hope my statement was true, go prove it for me!"
5) You think they're more inclined to help out those people with a strong statistical link to not voting for them? Lots of poor are while and rural and the GOP is just fine with buying them off.
1. We're talking about college loans, not high school drop-outs. I'm sure illegal immigrants live under a lower poverty level as well. It's a false dichotomy.
2. I don't care to prove it to you; go look it up yourself. Google is your friend.
5. You haven't been paying attention to republican ideas about welfare and entitlements, to say the least. They were voting down disaster relief for fuck's sake.
1. All this money comes from the same pot. You want to help people who have an immense advantage in the labor market over people who society has failed to properly prepare for any involvement in the market.
2. You're making an affirmative statement. If you'd like to withdraw it, go ahead.
5. My statement was that a handout to the poor (who skew R) is more likely than helping college grads (who skew D). You really doubt the current Republican party would choose option one over option two? This is completely ignoring the optics of the situation. If any D with serious standing was to start trumpeting this Rupert Murdoch would have a fucking orgasm. He would beat the entire party over the head with it and by the time he was done it would poll like shit among anybody who doesn't currently have massive student debt.
5. My statement was that a handout to the poor (who skew R) is more likely than helping college grads (who skew D). You really doubt the current Republican party would choose option one over option two? This is completely ignoring the optics of the situation. If any D with serious standing was to start trumpeting this Rupert Murdoch would have a fucking orgasm. He would beat the entire party over the head with it and by the time he was done it would poll like shit among anybody who doesn't currently have massive student debt.
Yes.
The GOP is, at the moment, run by the Southern wing of the party and its ideological fellow travelers. If you look at the history of the South, the one thing you will find that never, ever happens is major spending on the poor.*
* Louisiana demagogues with names like Kingfish excepted, of course.
Huh? I never said that they weren't politically influenced. I'm not making that argument because it's indefensible. But just because someone has a certain political bent doesn't invalidate everything they say.
No, I actually read the argument.
The basic idea is that student loan debt forgiveness is an incredibly stupid idea because it is not immediately stimulative. Maybe that's right, on the numbers, but it is a very slanted perspective on the benefits reducing that particular debt on society would have right now.
I've seen tons of numbers on student debt. It's crippling the ability of a huge portion of our educated population to buy into the economy. People are holding off on buying homes, buying vehicles and establishing families because of the debt.
It's leading to a growing consensus that college is a bad decision - very wrong, especially based on the employment numbers. We're already seeing a dramatic decline in male students entering university. If the U.S. is going to be anything but the newest member of the Third World, we really don't want to be establishing the idea that higher education is a sucker's bet.
So, it's a broad dismissal of the idea based on a very narrow reading of the numbers. Since I've seen the Freakonomics guys do the same thing on several other politically charged issues - with their conclusions always coming down on the rightward side - I stand by my statement that they are just another group of conservative columnists hiding behind an outwardly "scientific" facade.
Sounds like an argument for education reform- something which I also agree on! However, his dismissal based on 'slanted numbers' (which I'd disagree with without looking into it much further; I've seen the various stats and they tend to agree with what's he's saying, but I don't remember them off the top of my head) is more substantive than the actual proposal.
You're perfectly in your right to dimiss them completely. But like I said, being "right-wing" doesn't mean they're wrong on everything, and there is a lot of really interesting stuff that comes across their blog. I personally skip anything remotely political because they're analysis (especially Dubner) is generally dumb and one-sided. However, like most blogs, if they say something particularly dumb, the comments (which are quite good on freakonomics) usually rip into them. Here is the dumbest thing I've seen Dubner say, and the comments don't really hold back.
I guess I can sum this up by saying: haters gonna hate.
I'm not withdrawing anything; I just don't have the heart to go looking up unemployment statistics for recent college grads as A) I am one, am not earning enough on my investment and C) hate my current job but due to the economy, I can't find a better one or feel comfortable starting my own business.
So, either prove it wrong or stuff it (respectfully).
[
Sounds like an argument for education reform- something which I also agree on! However, his dismissal based on 'slanted numbers' (which I'd disagree with without looking into it much further; I've seen the various stats and they tend to agree with what's he's saying, but I don't remember them off the top of my head) is more substantive than the actual proposal.
Any education reform that doesn't address existing student loan debt is going to be a hard sell. It will be easy to combat with "sour grapes" tactics. A population who will be paying debt for the next couple decades will have a hard time swallowing giving future students - most of whom cannot even vote yet - a break that they did not have.
Locally, college graduates around my age can find work, though it might be crappy work. However, they can still live (with roommates), eat out, go out, have fun, etc. despite their student loans. This is in one of the most expensive (but dynamic) areas of the US.
I deal with several semi-skilled collegewhoops high-school dropout types that work significantly harder than the college graduates working retail, make less money, have worse lives because of it, and still manage to make ends meet.. barely. We're talking intergenerational poverty. It's absolutely heartbreaking.
So when people that are as a whole reasonably well off want to force a government handout when there are people really living in poverty that need it? I don't have a lot of time for that attitude.
5. My statement was that a handout to the poor (who skew R) is more likely than helping college grads (who skew D). You really doubt the current Republican party would choose option one over option two? This is completely ignoring the optics of the situation. If any D with serious standing was to start trumpeting this Rupert Murdoch would have a fucking orgasm. He would beat the entire party over the head with it and by the time he was done it would poll like shit among anybody who doesn't currently have massive student debt.
Yes.
The GOP is, at the moment, run by the Southern wing of the party and its ideological fellow travelers. If you look at the history of the South, the one thing you will find that never, ever happens is major spending on the poor.*
* Louisiana demagogues with names like Kingfish excepted, of course.
Hmm.....I think there isn't an exact answer to this but if it were a choice between A (the poor) or B (the college educated) I still think they'd go with A but it is likely only hypothetical as option C (Do nothing so we can win an election) is far more likely.
I'm not withdrawing anything; I just don't have the heart to go looking up unemployment statistics for recent college grads as A) I am one, am not earning enough on my investment and C) hate my current job but due to the economy, I can't find a better one or feel comfortable starting my own business.
So, either prove it wrong or stuff it (respectfully).
I'm not going to do your argument for you, I think this sorta means we're done then.
I will submit that you may be giving your personal situation a bit heavier weight than it really deserves in an abstract discussion. Obviously, to you, personally, you would rather wipe out all that debt but I really do not think that is the most efficient use of discretionary government spending. I think it would be better spent on other things with a stronger stimulative effect and a more pervasive impact on the general welfare of the country. Our infrastructure is falling apart and spending on that has such a ridiculous return on the economy.
So when people that are as a whole reasonably well off want to force a government handout when there are people really living in poverty that need it? I don't have a lot of time for that attitude.
Why should I care about those living in poverty, when there are poor children starving in Africa? The "there are people worse off" card can spiral down into infinity.
I think you just, unwittingly defined the problem. We have a generation of college graduates working retail, unhappily. That's really going to help reinforce negative attitudes about college, at a time when India, China, Brazil and every other developing economy are investing heavily in higher education.
And as someone who actually grew up poor - thank you, single mom - I can tell you that the poor can also afford to drink, party and have fun. They just can't invest, save, buy homes or gain any stability.
I don't think it is the most efficient use of stimulus either. However, I also don't think we're going to actually get a decent stimulus package out of this Congress, so people might as well start highlighting immense problems with the system.
Why is the housing market terrible? Well, one major contributor would be the people that historically go out and buy those new houses are already paying a mortgage on their education. That applies to cars as well, and all the staple industries that go along with housing and transportation. It's a big deal that the country should do something about. And I do honestly think that some form of debt reduction for college grads coupled with major reform for current and future college goers is a great way to spend money. Remember, there are different ways to reduce debt than a straight handout. We can steer grads towards infrastructure projects just as well as everyone else, just in different positions that they're qualified for, by giving specific reductions based on service.
I didn't say anyone was lazy, jesus. Did you read my post? Unless it's news to you that retail jobs are less arduous than manual labor? I'm not sure it's even worth bothering to reply if you're not going to discuss the matter in good faith.
Hmm.....I think there isn't an exact answer to this but if it were a choice between A (the poor) or B (the college educated) I still think they'd go with A but it is likely only hypothetical as option C (Do nothing so we can win an election) is far more likely.
False choice.
Student loan debt hits the poor hardest. You might be shocked by this, but there are a lot of poor kids are smart enough to go to college. As grants and stipends have dried up, they are the ones who have to take out large loans to finance their education.*
The current system is knocking out one of the primary ladders from poverty in the U.S. The old paradigm of "work hard, go to school and succeed" is breaking down, and the inability of the poor and lower middle class to afford college without massive loans is part of the problem.
* Sure, students can get jobs or take classes part time. The statistics show that students who do so have a much higher chance of dropping out, lower GPAs (which also limits job prospects) and still have to take out loans, since the kind of jobs you can get while going to school are not the kind that pays for rent, food, books, gas and tuition.
I didn't say anyone was lazy, jesus. Did you read my post? Unless it's news to you that retail jobs are less arduous than manual labor? I'm not sure it's even worth bothering to reply if you're not going to discuss the matter in good faith.
What did you mean by this, then?:
I deal with several semi-skilled college dropouts that work significantly harder than the college graduates working retail, make less money, have worse lives because of it, and still manage to make ends meet.. barely. We're talking generational poverty. It's absolutely heartbreaking.
Because retail is a fucking hard-ass job. It's more draining than construction, which I have also worked. The only thing harder is wait staff work, which is also a prime job for underemployed college graduates.
Also, what kind of construction jobs do these people have that pay less than retail? I jumped from a mall job to a work site because I went from minimum to $12/hour in the 1990s. Construction has always been a good gig if you could get it and keep steady work, while retail has always been one small rung up from fast food.
I meant they have an option of a slightly-better-paying job that's less back-breaking and less hazardous to their health. I know retail is draining, and it generally sucks, but at least you don't have to stand outside in the freezing cold for hours at a time or risk falling to your death for wages that pay less than retail.
I meant they have an option of a slightly-better-paying job that's less back-breaking and less hazardous to their health. I know retail is draining, and it generally sucks, but at least you don't have to stand outside in the freezing cold for hours at a time or risk falling to your death for wages that pay less than retail.
Where do you live that construction pays less than retail?
I meant they have an option of a slightly-better-paying job that's less back-breaking and less hazardous to their health. I know retail is draining, and it generally sucks, but at least you don't have to stand outside in the freezing cold for hours at a time or risk falling to your death for wages that pay less than retail.
Labor jobs don't pay less than retail, generally speaking.
I went to college. My family's combined income was around $15k when I left home; I had a combination of grants, loans and scholarships. Also worked 35ish hours a week the entire time. Ended up with $30k in debt and a degree in Web Design...
...in September 1999, right as the Dot Com bubble was bursting and the economy was tanking post-terrorist attack. I've had some really tough times, but all things considered, I've gotten really, really lucky in that I was finally able to get a series of successively better jobs, enabling me to support my wife and two kids while slowly whittling away at debt, but I know plenty of people that were not so lucky.
There are plenty of people from poor families with college debt.
Also, yes, manual labor is harder on the body, but service jobs are far, far harder on the soul. At least with something like construction you can look back at the end of the day and point to something solid you've accomplished, some mark you've made, someone's life you've improved. Where's the spiritual payoff in flipping burgers?
*edit* And yeah, I've never seen a manual labor job paying minimum wage. Not around here.
What jobs do you mean then? Labor tends to pay significantly better than retail.
Yeah. The major issue with manual labor is that the jobs usually do not include health insurance, the work breaks down the body if done for decades and the pay isn't high enough to compensate for the medical issues and instability of employment.
Also, yes, manual labor is harder on the body, but service jobs are far, far harder on the soul. At least with something like construction you can look back at the end of the day and point to something solid you've accomplished, some mark you've made, someone's life you've improved. Where's the spiritual payoff in flipping burgers?
The single greatest perk working construction is that everyone on the site is an independent contractor. What that means in practice is that if the contractor tries to work the crew too hard or is too much of a dick, people walk. No job site is going to last more than a few months, anyway, so people are not prepared to put up with bullshit for fear of losing their job.
It's a far different work environment than retail. A million dictators have been spawned from the ranks of retail/fast food management.
Dunno. Part-time retail around here is $10+, full-time pays more.
edit- also yes the medical issues are a huge deal for manual labor positions what with our broken healthcare system.
I think the lesson here is that you live in a unique economic environment. Retail sure as hell doesn't pay more than $10/hr. full-time in the rest of America.
Just looked up the data, and the median non-specialized retail salary is $9.22.
Well, those are good retail positions. The kind that college graduates can get. I'm sure fast food pays less.
Anyway, this conversation is so far away from having a point that I think it's time to put it to rest.
Edit- Yup! Just checked on that site and the work I've been referring to but can't name pays worse than retail on the low end and barely better on the mid-to-high. So it's not just here.
Well, those are good retail positions. The kind that college graduates can get. I'm sure fast food pays less.
Again, I think you are speculating from a very niche viewpoint. While I'm sure there are "good" retail positions that college graduates can get, that says little about underemployment of college graduates in general.
And, since I looked it up, the median salary for a general laborer is $12.43/hr.
See my above edit. Anyway, BLS at least confirms that's it's not a completely localized phenomenon.
adytum on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Oh yeah unskilled laborers generally make more than retail workers. Clerical office work makes more than retail workers and wholesale workers make more than retail. Actually pretty much everyone makes more than retail workers, except maybe some farm workers.
If you are working retail, try to move into working for your companies supplier. It will likely be more fulfilling work, at a higher pay, and you can use your relationship with them as an in.
Posts
Why would you only include recent college grads? The proposal doesn't say anything about that.
The rest of what you said is nonsensical.
As Paul Krugman has noted, economics is a profession whose prognoses are very easily corrupted by ideology. So, there's the "fruit of the poisoned tree" aspect. I've also seen some pretty wacky stuff on the environment from them, including the de riguer Jane Fonda rant, so I know that their analyses can be distorted by their politics.
And, if you look through these, you might notice a pattern. Student loan debt seems to be more than an inconvenience in our society:
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
1.) Your contention is that High School Drop Outs have faired better than College Degree holders in the last few decades?
2.) Like, below the poverty line poor? Cause I'd love to see some numbers on that. How college degree holders have a higher poverty rate...well then anybody.
5.) It is more viable than the forgiveness plan.
The actual pattern seems to be "we need a reasonable healthcare system" which I agree with 100%.
I'm not sure anyone will buy the idea that economists are politically influenced is a "dumb thing."
But, I'll let Krugman speak for himself:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/does-economics-still-progress/
1) I don't think the "typically have high incomes" applies for recent college grads.
2) You can look up the unemployed/underemployed numbers.
5) You'd never have a shot in Hell of getting a "give the poor straight money!" bill passed while a single republican law maker draws breath.
Huh? I never said that they weren't politically influenced. I'm not making that argument because it's pretty much indefensible. But just because someone has a certain political bent doesn't invalidate everything they say.
1) So your contention really is that a college grad makes less than a high school drop out?
2) So "I sure hope my statement was true, go prove it for me!"
5) You think they're more inclined to help out those people with a strong statistical link to not voting for them? Lots of poor are while and rural and the GOP is just fine with buying them off.
No, I actually read the argument.
The basic idea is that student loan debt forgiveness is an incredibly stupid idea because it is not immediately stimulative. Maybe that's right, on the numbers, but it is a very slanted perspective on the benefits reducing that particular debt on society would have right now.
I've seen tons of numbers on student debt. It's crippling the ability of a huge portion of our educated population to buy into the economy. People are holding off on buying homes, buying vehicles and establishing families because of the debt. This problem is going to escalate, as its effects will accumulate during the lifetime of the student.
It's leading to a growing consensus that college is a bad decision - very wrong, especially based on the employment numbers. We're already seeing a dramatic decline in male students entering university. If the U.S. is going to be anything but the newest member of the Third World, we really don't want to be establishing the idea that higher education is a sucker's bet.
So, it's a broad dismissal of the idea based on a very narrow reading of the numbers. Since I've seen the Freakonomics guys do the same thing on several other politically charged issues - with their conclusions always coming down on the rightward side - I stand by my statement that they are just another group of conservative columnists hiding behind an outwardly "scientific" facade.
1. We're talking about college loans, not high school drop-outs. I'm sure illegal immigrants live under a lower poverty level as well. It's a false dichotomy.
2. I don't care to prove it to you; go look it up yourself. Google is your friend.
5. You haven't been paying attention to republican ideas about welfare and entitlements, to say the least. They were voting down disaster relief for fuck's sake.
1. All this money comes from the same pot. You want to help people who have an immense advantage in the labor market over people who society has failed to properly prepare for any involvement in the market.
2. You're making an affirmative statement. If you'd like to withdraw it, go ahead.
5. My statement was that a handout to the poor (who skew R) is more likely than helping college grads (who skew D). You really doubt the current Republican party would choose option one over option two? This is completely ignoring the optics of the situation. If any D with serious standing was to start trumpeting this Rupert Murdoch would have a fucking orgasm. He would beat the entire party over the head with it and by the time he was done it would poll like shit among anybody who doesn't currently have massive student debt.
Yes.
The GOP is, at the moment, run by the Southern wing of the party and its ideological fellow travelers. If you look at the history of the South, the one thing you will find that never, ever happens is major spending on the poor.*
* Louisiana demagogues with names like Kingfish excepted, of course.
Sounds like an argument for education reform- something which I also agree on! However, his dismissal based on 'slanted numbers' (which I'd disagree with without looking into it much further; I've seen the various stats and they tend to agree with what's he's saying, but I don't remember them off the top of my head) is more substantive than the actual proposal.
You're perfectly in your right to dimiss them completely. But like I said, being "right-wing" doesn't mean they're wrong on everything, and there is a lot of really interesting stuff that comes across their blog. I personally skip anything remotely political because they're analysis (especially Dubner) is generally dumb and one-sided. However, like most blogs, if they say something particularly dumb, the comments (which are quite good on freakonomics) usually rip into them. Here is the dumbest thing I've seen Dubner say, and the comments don't really hold back.
I guess I can sum this up by saying: haters gonna hate.
So, either prove it wrong or stuff it (respectfully).
Any education reform that doesn't address existing student loan debt is going to be a hard sell. It will be easy to combat with "sour grapes" tactics. A population who will be paying debt for the next couple decades will have a hard time swallowing giving future students - most of whom cannot even vote yet - a break that they did not have.
Locally, college graduates around my age can find work, though it might be crappy work. However, they can still live (with roommates), eat out, go out, have fun, etc. despite their student loans. This is in one of the most expensive (but dynamic) areas of the US.
I deal with several semi-skilled collegewhoops high-school dropout types that work significantly harder than the college graduates working retail, make less money, have worse lives because of it, and still manage to make ends meet.. barely. We're talking intergenerational poverty. It's absolutely heartbreaking.
So when people that are as a whole reasonably well off want to force a government handout when there are people really living in poverty that need it? I don't have a lot of time for that attitude.
Hmm.....I think there isn't an exact answer to this but if it were a choice between A (the poor) or B (the college educated) I still think they'd go with A but it is likely only hypothetical as option C (Do nothing so we can win an election) is far more likely.
I'm not going to do your argument for you, I think this sorta means we're done then.
I will submit that you may be giving your personal situation a bit heavier weight than it really deserves in an abstract discussion. Obviously, to you, personally, you would rather wipe out all that debt but I really do not think that is the most efficient use of discretionary government spending. I think it would be better spent on other things with a stronger stimulative effect and a more pervasive impact on the general welfare of the country. Our infrastructure is falling apart and spending on that has such a ridiculous return on the economy.
Why should I care about those living in poverty, when there are poor children starving in Africa? The "there are people worse off" card can spiral down into infinity.
I think you just, unwittingly defined the problem. We have a generation of college graduates working retail, unhappily. That's really going to help reinforce negative attitudes about college, at a time when India, China, Brazil and every other developing economy are investing heavily in higher education.
And as someone who actually grew up poor - thank you, single mom - I can tell you that the poor can also afford to drink, party and have fun. They just can't invest, save, buy homes or gain any stability.
Just like your lazy college graduates.
Why is the housing market terrible? Well, one major contributor would be the people that historically go out and buy those new houses are already paying a mortgage on their education. That applies to cars as well, and all the staple industries that go along with housing and transportation. It's a big deal that the country should do something about. And I do honestly think that some form of debt reduction for college grads coupled with major reform for current and future college goers is a great way to spend money. Remember, there are different ways to reduce debt than a straight handout. We can steer grads towards infrastructure projects just as well as everyone else, just in different positions that they're qualified for, by giving specific reductions based on service.
False choice.
Student loan debt hits the poor hardest. You might be shocked by this, but there are a lot of poor kids are smart enough to go to college. As grants and stipends have dried up, they are the ones who have to take out large loans to finance their education.*
The current system is knocking out one of the primary ladders from poverty in the U.S. The old paradigm of "work hard, go to school and succeed" is breaking down, and the inability of the poor and lower middle class to afford college without massive loans is part of the problem.
* Sure, students can get jobs or take classes part time. The statistics show that students who do so have a much higher chance of dropping out, lower GPAs (which also limits job prospects) and still have to take out loans, since the kind of jobs you can get while going to school are not the kind that pays for rent, food, books, gas and tuition.
What did you mean by this, then?:
Because retail is a fucking hard-ass job. It's more draining than construction, which I have also worked. The only thing harder is wait staff work, which is also a prime job for underemployed college graduates.
Also, what kind of construction jobs do these people have that pay less than retail? I jumped from a mall job to a work site because I went from minimum to $12/hour in the 1990s. Construction has always been a good gig if you could get it and keep steady work, while retail has always been one small rung up from fast food.
Where do you live that construction pays less than retail?
Labor jobs don't pay less than retail, generally speaking.
What jobs do you mean then? Labor tends to pay significantly better than retail.
I went to college. My family's combined income was around $15k when I left home; I had a combination of grants, loans and scholarships. Also worked 35ish hours a week the entire time. Ended up with $30k in debt and a degree in Web Design...
...in September 1999, right as the Dot Com bubble was bursting and the economy was tanking post-terrorist attack. I've had some really tough times, but all things considered, I've gotten really, really lucky in that I was finally able to get a series of successively better jobs, enabling me to support my wife and two kids while slowly whittling away at debt, but I know plenty of people that were not so lucky.
There are plenty of people from poor families with college debt.
Also, yes, manual labor is harder on the body, but service jobs are far, far harder on the soul. At least with something like construction you can look back at the end of the day and point to something solid you've accomplished, some mark you've made, someone's life you've improved. Where's the spiritual payoff in flipping burgers?
*edit* And yeah, I've never seen a manual labor job paying minimum wage. Not around here.
It has to be. Even janitorial jobs pay better than retail.
Retail and fast food are the bottom rungs of wage labor. Farm labor is worse, but the laws there are so fucked that it's a whole 'nother world.
Yeah. The major issue with manual labor is that the jobs usually do not include health insurance, the work breaks down the body if done for decades and the pay isn't high enough to compensate for the medical issues and instability of employment.
edit- also yes the medical issues are a huge deal for manual labor positions what with our broken healthcare system.
The single greatest perk working construction is that everyone on the site is an independent contractor. What that means in practice is that if the contractor tries to work the crew too hard or is too much of a dick, people walk. No job site is going to last more than a few months, anyway, so people are not prepared to put up with bullshit for fear of losing their job.
It's a far different work environment than retail. A million dictators have been spawned from the ranks of retail/fast food management.
I think the lesson here is that you live in a unique economic environment. Retail sure as hell doesn't pay more than $10/hr. full-time in the rest of America.
Just looked up the data, and the median non-specialized retail salary is $9.22.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos121.htm
Anyway, this conversation is so far away from having a point that I think it's time to put it to rest.
Edit- Yup! Just checked on that site and the work I've been referring to but can't name pays worse than retail on the low end and barely better on the mid-to-high. So it's not just here.
Again, I think you are speculating from a very niche viewpoint. While I'm sure there are "good" retail positions that college graduates can get, that says little about underemployment of college graduates in general.
And, since I looked it up, the median salary for a general laborer is $12.43/hr.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/general-laborer-salary-SRCH_KO0,15.htm
If you are working retail, try to move into working for your companies supplier. It will likely be more fulfilling work, at a higher pay, and you can use your relationship with them as an in.