|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2017 01:56 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:46 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:
Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea
i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples just because he deleted his reddit account doesn't mean he no longer has a voice. that's not the way any of this works. now you're proposing that it's at least equally likely if not more likely that a credible journalist publishes easily provable lies on a story he chose to publish? and that makes sense to you? he'd risk his entire career by choice for a lack luster story at best? well ok. and yea, i guess the comparison to Don makes sense in that scenario. The guy's in a really bad position though (it's 99.9% his fault but whatever), the only way I can see him being able to say what he claims happened is if he reveals himself, full identity and all, or reactivates his Reddit account, which I don't know if that's a thing that can be done
It can't. Once you delete your account it's gone.
|
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
Source
In America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round.
|
On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round.
And then some professions get dumped into unpaid internships that will look great on resumes.
|
On July 06 2017 02:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. And then some professions get dumped into unpaid internships that will look great on resumes.
Look, I know you will be 70K-100K indebt by the time this is done, but your earning potential will be huge after 2 years of unpaid internships. Then you will be able to pay off your loans by the time you are 42 if the economy doesn't take a hit in those 15-20 so years. Just don't have kids or buy a house. Clean living.
|
On July 06 2017 02:01 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 01:56 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:46 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples just because he deleted his reddit account doesn't mean he no longer has a voice. that's not the way any of this works. now you're proposing that it's at least equally likely if not more likely that a credible journalist publishes easily provable lies on a story he chose to publish? and that makes sense to you? he'd risk his entire career by choice for a lack luster story at best? well ok. and yea, i guess the comparison to Don makes sense in that scenario. The guy's in a really bad position though (it's 99.9% his fault but whatever), the only way I can see him being able to say what he claims happened is if he reveals himself, full identity and all, or reactivates his Reddit account, which I don't know if that's a thing that can be done It can't. Once you delete your account it's gone.
That's unfortunate. Oh well, honestly, since I have no way of knowing if the journalist is lying or not when he says that the HanAssholeSolo guy contacted him and said he didn't feel coerced, I have no real reason to believe the journalist is lying, so I'll believe him, but if he could get a screenshot or whatever, I think that would close that line of thought
|
On July 06 2017 02:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:01 Gahlo wrote:On July 06 2017 01:56 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:46 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples just because he deleted his reddit account doesn't mean he no longer has a voice. that's not the way any of this works. now you're proposing that it's at least equally likely if not more likely that a credible journalist publishes easily provable lies on a story he chose to publish? and that makes sense to you? he'd risk his entire career by choice for a lack luster story at best? well ok. and yea, i guess the comparison to Don makes sense in that scenario. The guy's in a really bad position though (it's 99.9% his fault but whatever), the only way I can see him being able to say what he claims happened is if he reveals himself, full identity and all, or reactivates his Reddit account, which I don't know if that's a thing that can be done It can't. Once you delete your account it's gone. That's unfortunate. Oh well, honestly, since I have no way of knowing if the journalist is lying or not when he says that the HanAssholeSolo guy contacted him and said he didn't feel coerced, I have no real reason to believe the journalist is lying, so I'll believe him, but if he could get a screenshot or whatever, I think that would close that line of thought
Screenshots can be edited or fakes outright. I understand the desire for "proof", but at some point you just need to take people in good faith. Especially on the internet where everything can be faked. Or look up their history as a journalist and see if they have stretched the truth in the past.
|
On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round.
Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs
|
On July 06 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:10 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:01 Gahlo wrote:On July 06 2017 01:56 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:46 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples just because he deleted his reddit account doesn't mean he no longer has a voice. that's not the way any of this works. now you're proposing that it's at least equally likely if not more likely that a credible journalist publishes easily provable lies on a story he chose to publish? and that makes sense to you? he'd risk his entire career by choice for a lack luster story at best? well ok. and yea, i guess the comparison to Don makes sense in that scenario. The guy's in a really bad position though (it's 99.9% his fault but whatever), the only way I can see him being able to say what he claims happened is if he reveals himself, full identity and all, or reactivates his Reddit account, which I don't know if that's a thing that can be done It can't. Once you delete your account it's gone. That's unfortunate. Oh well, honestly, since I have no way of knowing if the journalist is lying or not when he says that the HanAssholeSolo guy contacted him and said he didn't feel coerced, I have no real reason to believe the journalist is lying, so I'll believe him, but if he could get a screenshot or whatever, I think that would close that line of thought Screenshots can be edited or fakes outright. I understand the desire for "proof", but at some point you just need to take people in good faith. Especially on the internet where everything can be faked. Or look up their history as a journalist and see if they have stretched the truth in the past.
Yeah, I will unless given a solid reason to think he's lying.
|
Canada11378 Posts
Oh, I know this for sure I took the exact same summer job in Parks that my dad took maybe a 25 year difference? And received the exact same $10.00/ hour wage. In the meantime, tuition rates in BC tripled from the 90's until the present (I can't find a proper range comparison of the 80's to 2010 for tuition,which would be more accurate.) Fortunately the job I got into also didn't have it's wages frozen in time, but uni jobs are pretty rough these days. I imagine the same is true in the US though.
|
On July 06 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:10 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:01 Gahlo wrote:On July 06 2017 01:56 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:46 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:42 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:37 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:34 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 01:33 brian wrote:On July 06 2017 01:30 plasmidghost wrote:Well, here's what CNN has to officially say. It seems like they're not going to go after the guy at all, which I guess is good, but still, they need to retract the line saying that they reserve the right to publish his name. If it is true that they didn't coerce him, then the article was incredibly poorly worded and certainly made it seem like they were trying to coerce him. Whether or not it's true, I have no idea https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/882633418370142209 i mean you could go straight to the source where the writer specifically denies any coercion and goes so far as to say he spoke to the 'victim' of this coercion who agreed there was no such coercion. but you do you. It's a bad idea to take what one side of the story says at face vale. We're still missing the side of the HanAssholeSolo guy himself, but we'll probably never get that, so I guess I'm just going to move on from this on one hand we have a credible journalist claiming the alleged victim agrees there's no coercion. on the other hand we have the alleged victim hiding everything he's ever written and not denying such a claim. i'm not taking either side as gospel but it's hard for me to imagine a world where coercion happened. i guess the only other explanation that makes any sense is if he got paid off to keep quiet. but then it's not coercion either. The journalist already knows the guy deleted his account and wouldn't be able to respond to anything the journalist cliams, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him lie to protect his ass, it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in a position of power did just that, just look at this administration for dozens of examples just because he deleted his reddit account doesn't mean he no longer has a voice. that's not the way any of this works. now you're proposing that it's at least equally likely if not more likely that a credible journalist publishes easily provable lies on a story he chose to publish? and that makes sense to you? he'd risk his entire career by choice for a lack luster story at best? well ok. and yea, i guess the comparison to Don makes sense in that scenario. The guy's in a really bad position though (it's 99.9% his fault but whatever), the only way I can see him being able to say what he claims happened is if he reveals himself, full identity and all, or reactivates his Reddit account, which I don't know if that's a thing that can be done It can't. Once you delete your account it's gone. That's unfortunate. Oh well, honestly, since I have no way of knowing if the journalist is lying or not when he says that the HanAssholeSolo guy contacted him and said he didn't feel coerced, I have no real reason to believe the journalist is lying, so I'll believe him, but if he could get a screenshot or whatever, I think that would close that line of thought Screenshots can be edited or fakes outright. I understand the desire for "proof", but at some point you just need to take people in good faith. Especially on the internet where everything can be faked. Or look up their history as a journalist and see if they have stretched the truth in the past.
i can't play into this. you have to succumb to conspiracy level thinking to assume the reddit user can't out himself if he wanted to simply because he deleted his reddit account. this journalist is certainly not the only person who knows his identity. you'd have to be ready to claim a handful of people in CNN are all in on the cover up.
and it's always good to keep in mind context. we are assuming they are going through all this trouble just to fuck over some racist nobody just because he claimed to make a funny gif meme.
but everyone else has acknowledged it so i will too, it's all for nothing. so i guess sorry for the wall of useless text. idk.
|
On July 06 2017 02:17 Falling wrote:
Oh, I know this for sure I took the exact same summer job in Parks that my dad took maybe a 25 year difference? And received the exact same $10.00/ hour wage. In the meantime, tuition rates in BC tripled from the 90's until the present (I can't find a proper range comparison of the 80's to 2010 for tuition,which would be more accurate.) Fortunately the job I got into also didn't have it's wages frozen in time, but uni jobs are pretty rough these days. I imagine the same is true in the US though.
Yeah, it's pretty bad. We've fucked ourselves pretty good by peddling the lie that everyone should go to college and flooding the post-secondary education system with a bunch of easy money.
|
On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs
Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it.
On July 06 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:17 Falling wrote:
Oh, I know this for sure I took the exact same summer job in Parks that my dad took maybe a 25 year difference? And received the exact same $10.00/ hour wage. In the meantime, tuition rates in BC tripled from the 90's until the present (I can't find a proper range comparison of the 80's to 2010 for tuition,which would be more accurate.) Fortunately the job I got into also didn't have it's wages frozen in time, but uni jobs are pretty rough these days. I imagine the same is true in the US though. Yeah, it's pretty bad. We've fucked ourselves pretty good by peddling the lie that everyone should go to college and flooding the post-secondary education system with a bunch of easy money.
When we created student loans, it seemed like a great idea. Colleges were lean, mean teaching machines. But unlimited money meant they could always get more. Makes me think Alan Greenspan believing banks were the best suited to regulate themselves.
|
On July 06 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:17 Falling wrote:
Oh, I know this for sure I took the exact same summer job in Parks that my dad took maybe a 25 year difference? And received the exact same $10.00/ hour wage. In the meantime, tuition rates in BC tripled from the 90's until the present (I can't find a proper range comparison of the 80's to 2010 for tuition,which would be more accurate.) Fortunately the job I got into also didn't have it's wages frozen in time, but uni jobs are pretty rough these days. I imagine the same is true in the US though. Yeah, it's pretty bad. We've fucked ourselves pretty good by peddling the lie that everyone should go to college and flooding the post-secondary education system with a bunch of easy money.
And on the flip side low education jobs are being eliminated left and right by automation.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
|
United States43283 Posts
On July 06 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:17 Falling wrote:
Oh, I know this for sure I took the exact same summer job in Parks that my dad took maybe a 25 year difference? And received the exact same $10.00/ hour wage. In the meantime, tuition rates in BC tripled from the 90's until the present (I can't find a proper range comparison of the 80's to 2010 for tuition,which would be more accurate.) Fortunately the job I got into also didn't have it's wages frozen in time, but uni jobs are pretty rough these days. I imagine the same is true in the US though. Yeah, it's pretty bad. We've fucked ourselves pretty good by peddling the lie that everyone should go to college and flooding the post-secondary education system with a bunch of easy money.
I don't think it's so much "everyone should go to college" as "if you didn't go to college you don't deserve a living wage". We see it pretty often in this topic whenever the minimum wage comes up. The struggle of anyone who can't afford a roof and food on the table is dismissed as being their own fault because they didn't try hard enough to get high value skills. So the baristas did night school at college and got their degree and it turns out the labour market is just pretty saturated and what we actually needed were baristas.
I find it hard to use "too many people are going to college" as a stick to bash people with. What we're seeing here is that the old platitude the older generation told us, "go to college, get a good job", is hollow. Going to college is what they were told to do growing up in order to be judged worthy of a living wage.
|
On July 06 2017 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it.
It's more that we all know the Republicans don't have the best interests of the average working-class person in mind, but the Democrats try to sell themselves as friends of the working class , but when someone who actually champions serious reforms that the working class needs to be able to survive, the entire Democratic Party establishment comes out against him. I saw this personally since I was involved in my county's Democratic Party organization and everyone, myself included, that said they supported Bernie Sanders, the heads either laughed at us or started excluding us from things because we weren't blindly following Hillary. Many of my friends don't even have health insurance and the Democrats refused to support single-payer/universal healthcare systems. I go after them hardest because going after the Republicans and Trump is like beating a dead horse
|
On July 06 2017 02:31 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it. It's more that we all know the Republicans don't have the best interests of the average working-class person in mind, but the Democrats try to sell themselves as friends of the working class , but when someone who actually champions serious reforms that the working class needs to be able to survive, the entire Democratic Party establishment comes out against him. I saw this personally since I was involved in my county's Democratic Party organization and everyone, myself included, that said they supported Bernie Sanders, the heads either laughed at us or started excluding us from things because we weren't blindly following Hillary
or myabe that was because sanders wasn't a democrat and didn't have an actual plan? just a bunch of talk that couldn't be backed up? other people did champion serious reform; you just probably didn't realize it.
that said, it wouldn't be surprising if some of the party heads were like that; a lot of people in politics suck.
|
On July 06 2017 02:33 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:31 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it. It's more that we all know the Republicans don't have the best interests of the average working-class person in mind, but the Democrats try to sell themselves as friends of the working class , but when someone who actually champions serious reforms that the working class needs to be able to survive, the entire Democratic Party establishment comes out against him. I saw this personally since I was involved in my county's Democratic Party organization and everyone, myself included, that said they supported Bernie Sanders, the heads either laughed at us or started excluding us from things because we weren't blindly following Hillary or myabe that was because sanders wasn't a democrat and didn't have an actual plan? just a bunch of talk that couldn't be backed up? other people did champion serious reform; you just probably didn't realize it. that said, it wouldn't be surprising if some of the party heads were like that; a lot of people in politics suck.
I saw there were other great plans, I just referenced Bernie because it was the most high-profile example of the Democrats ignoring what a significant part of the population wants (and I think needs, but that's a separate argument)
|
On July 06 2017 02:31 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it. It's more that we all know the Republicans don't have the best interests of the average working-class person in mind, but the Democrats try to sell themselves as friends of the working class , but when someone who actually champions serious reforms that the working class needs to be able to survive, the entire Democratic Party establishment comes out against him. I saw this personally since I was involved in my county's Democratic Party organization and everyone, myself included, that said they supported Bernie Sanders, the heads either laughed at us or started excluding us from things because we weren't blindly following Hillary
The democratic party is filled with baby boomers who are still high on the idea they are the greatest generation. They can change over time if people stay involved.
On July 06 2017 02:33 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:31 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it. It's more that we all know the Republicans don't have the best interests of the average working-class person in mind, but the Democrats try to sell themselves as friends of the working class , but when someone who actually champions serious reforms that the working class needs to be able to survive, the entire Democratic Party establishment comes out against him. I saw this personally since I was involved in my county's Democratic Party organization and everyone, myself included, that said they supported Bernie Sanders, the heads either laughed at us or started excluding us from things because we weren't blindly following Hillary or myabe that was because sanders wasn't a democrat and didn't have an actual plan? just a bunch of talk that couldn't be backed up? other people did champion serious reform; you just probably didn't realize it. that said, it wouldn't be surprising if some of the party heads were like that; a lot of people in politics suck.
The Democrats have zero plan to address student loans. It is an is an issue that mostly impacts future voters or 18-21 years olds who don't vote.
|
On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: Show nested quote +A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source.
The large difference here is likely due to numbers of women/men getting college degrees. At my college it was 33/67 ratio of men to women, and that's pretty common these days. Men are also more likely to fail out and not complete college, and we are moving towards a service based economy that would traditionally favor women. It is no surprise to me at all that women cannot find educated men - there are probably 2 women with a degree for every man in some areas.
|
United States43283 Posts
On July 06 2017 02:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 02:31 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 02:15 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Why Summer Jobs Don't Pay
Why can't kids today just work their way through college the way earlier generations did?
The answer to that question isn't psychology. It's math. A summer job just doesn't have the purchasing power it used to, especially when you compare it with the cost of college.
Let's take the example of a working-class student at a four-year public university who's getting no help from Mom and Dad. In 1981-'82, the average full cost to attend was $2,870. That's for tuition, fees and room and board.
The maximum Pell Grant award back then for free tuition help from the government was $1,800. That leaves our hypothetical student on the hook for just about $1,000. Add in a little pocket money, too — say $35 a week. That makes an extra $1,820 for the year on top of the $1,000 tuition shortfall.
Now, $3.35 an hour was the minimum wage back then. So, making $2,870 meant working 842 hours. That's 16 hours a week year-round — a decent part-time job. It's also about nine hours a day for three straight months — a full-time, seven-day-a-week summer job. Or, more likely, a combination of both. In short: not impossible. Far from it.
For today's public university student, though, the numbers have all changed in the wrong direction.
For the school year that just ended, the total of tuition, fees and room and board for in-state students at four-year public universities was $20,090. The maximum Pell Grant didn't keep pace with that: It was $5,815. That left our hypothetical student on the hook for $14,275.
A student would now have to work 37 hours a week, every week of the year, at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, to get by. Research shows that when college students work more than 20 hours a week, their studies suffer. If they're working full time, many will take longer to finish and end up paying even more.
To cover today's costs with a low-skilled summer job? Over 90 days, a student would need to work 21.9 hours a day.
Of course, you could seek work in a city with a higher minimum wage like Washington, D.C. ($12.50, as of July 1) or Seattle, where it's $13 an hour, on its way to $15 (but there, low-wage workers may have lost out on annual income).
Rents tend to be higher in those places, too.
Plus side: If you're working that much, you may not need to pay rent because you're hardly sleeping.
No wonder students are borrowing so much these days.
SourceIn America, where you pay more for garbage. But everyone tells you it is worth the money. But in the 1980s we could pay for college on 16 hours of work a week year round. Shit like this is why I have such a disdain for modern liberals and the Democratic Party (I also hate the conservatives and the Republican party, but that should be obvious). College is getting to the point where less and less people can afford it and they keep trying to tell us bullshit like "it's not possible" or "try again in a few years." It pisses me off because I lived in a pretty poor town and most of my friends couldn't afford any halfway decent college and got stuck working in chemical plants where they breathe in hundreds of carcinogens each day or had to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to be able to even go to college. I went to a private school out of state for a few months and ended up dropping out because it was so fucking expensive and I couldn't bear to put my family in debt because of the ridiculous rates they were charging. I know that's private schools and they can charge whatever they want, so that doesn't apply, but even when in-state tuition at a public university runs you over $20k a year, something has to change, and it sure as shit didn't help that our governor decided to deregulate the tuition costs Why not both parties since both of them did this? The rising price of college has been a problem for decades and both parties ignored it. They decided that unlimited, uncapped student loans that cannot be discharged was a good idea. And now we have an entire entrenched industry that is based on enriching themselves off of these loans. At any point they could have updated the student loan system to address these problems, but they ignored it. It's more that we all know the Republicans don't have the best interests of the average working-class person in mind, but the Democrats try to sell themselves as friends of the working class , but when someone who actually champions serious reforms that the working class needs to be able to survive, the entire Democratic Party establishment comes out against him. I saw this personally since I was involved in my county's Democratic Party organization and everyone, myself included, that said they supported Bernie Sanders, the heads either laughed at us or started excluding us from things because we weren't blindly following Hillary The democratic party is filled with baby boomers who are still high on the idea they are the greatest generation. They can change over time if people stay involved.
The fact that the party laughed when plasmidghost spoke doesn't necessarily prove that the party is out of touch. We need more information before we can really judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
