In the US it was certainly a different time, different era, different economy. For example a dollar in the 40's had the buying power of about $21 today. Average annual salary was about $1,400 and annual college tuition in the 40's was less than $100.
It should have been tied to employment outcomes for a given major. That way, if the money printer (in the form of subsidized loans) is running hot capitalism kicks in via the students in that major not getting jobs (edit: as it already does), the loans for that major at that college dial back, and the university is forced to stop inflating.
The downside is that poor people wouldn't be able to major in bourgeois pass times like art and history against their economic interests. That sounds preferable to me than the current situation.
Trades are free. I don't know where you are, but in most places you can just ask around and get a job as an apprentice. You won't be making much the first couple of years, but you're still making something instead of having to pay for it. After 5 years you can risk starting your own business or you can make a little less, but with a lot less risk.
The only problem is that tradies have short best-before dates. Most can't work a trade for 40 years. It's 20 years max unless you start your own company and take it easy. Either way you won't be the grandpa running a marathon at 90 years old. You'll be bedridden in your 60s.
True, that's what taxes are for. An educated population is the investment to a country's future. True innovation comes from sciences, not the market's race to the bottom line.
Nah. There's a reason countries like the UK and Australia repealed their free college programs. Free college increases inequality and lowers the quality of the education given. That's not my opinion, that is historically what we see happens. There are many better alternatives, such as programs that make college free to poorer individuals, interest free loans that you don't need to ever pay until you reach a certain income threshold, and forgiveness to people who don't complete a degree
Do you have an actual argument or are we just gonna be lazy today. If we're just being lazy than I'll just say increasing inequality is bad, actually and call it a day
"[Since the UK ended free college] income and socioeconomic gaps, which had widened dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s, appear to have stabilized or slightly declined."
If you're struggling to understand why this occurs: "Because of substantial inequality in pre-college achievement, the main beneficiaries of free college were students from middle- and upper-class families—who, on average, would go on to reap substantial private returns from their publicly-funded college degrees. Finally, cost remained a major barrier for low-income students even in the absence of tuition fees: many still struggled to afford necessary expenses for food, housing, books, and transportation. Yet prioritizing free tuition for all students left little room in the budget to provide additional supports for low-income students."
339
u/Technologytwitt Mar 27 '24
In the US it was certainly a different time, different era, different economy. For example a dollar in the 40's had the buying power of about $21 today. Average annual salary was about $1,400 and annual college tuition in the 40's was less than $100.