Clinton College Proposal

[SouthoftheAndes]

Also I don't believe that their is a surplus of STEM degree holders who can't get jobs. I think what it comes down to is people who don't want to work in STEM and chose some other field (business or whatever) either for the money or their own interests.

 

[Tom Servo]

man she really is begging for those coveted college votes.

 

[ripskater]

I think we need LESS people going to college and incentivize college goers to choose the right majors. Majors that we are in short supply of. We don't need anymore women's rights degrees and other bullshit degrees. And also educate high schoolers about the burden of student loan debt, as well as informing them that getting a college degree will not necessarily guarantee you ANY job after graduating.

This post is spot on^.

 

[quatin]

The unemployment among college graduates is 2.6%. So there is actually a shortage of college graduates in the workforce rather than a surplus. And when people are more educated, they are more productive (common sense, but it can be empirically demonstrated, too), which confers broader benefits in the economy. If we have more college graduates, we'll have more companies trying to take advantage of that fact, etc.

That's kind of nuts, though. We have no shortage of people to work low-level jobs, and only 30% of Americans over 25 years old are college graduates. We'd benefit from trying to bring that number up. We can worry about any problems that come from overshooting our goals when we're within 50 years of reaching them.

That would indeed be a good thing, though by that time, we probably won't have sanitation workers.

I would like to counter argue by declaring low college unemployment statistics is caused by the "cream of the crop" effect and not necessarily "higher qualifications due to education". People who have the dedication to get a 4 year degree already have the social/work ethic to enter the work force regardless of getting a college degree. I back that up with the following statistic:

Only 27% of college graduates get a job in their field of study.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lege-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-major/

Going to college is the most inefficient method of training a person for a career. The only common courses between college graduates might be the first 1-2 years, where everyone takes the basic calculus, history and english classes. This essentially comes down to the equivalent of a 2 year community college degree. The rest of the time and money is wasted.

Look at what kids today are going in debt to study:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37

1. Business
2. social sciences and history
3. health professions and related programs
4. psychology
5. education

Check out the most in demand majors:
http://blog.sfgate.com/gettowork/2015/04/30/most-in-demand-college-majors-of-2015/#photo-629435
1. Business
2. Computer and Informational science
3. Engineering
4. Math and statistics
5. Health professions

There's a mismatch happening here. Why should tax dollars be used to fund such a wasteful system? Maybe if you implement something that scales money towards the the more demanded majors. But you might as well privatize tuition loans at that point.

Most kids today really should be pushed to vocational training/trade school instead. Cheaper upfront cost means less loans. Higher chance to be employed in the field of study and you earn more than half of the college degree fields.

 

[ripskater]

Like some people have been saying, this wouldn't mean that, suddenly, 90% of the adult population would have college degrees.

It would mean that, suddenly, people would be free from a huge debt burden. People would have the freedom to pursue whatever else they want with the time and money that would otherwise go to pay that $50k debt.

More freedom is always good so I'm shocked (shocked!) that our freedom-loving, right-wing friends are against this.

It's not really freedom when the govt is taking peoples money to pay for things you should be paying for yourself.

 

[usmctanker242]

Did you even read the OP?

"The estimated $350 billion plan would in part be paid for by reinstituting limits on itemized deductions for high-income families that were in effect during the Reagan administration, according to the Washington Post."

...

"Hillary Clinton has proposed a plan to reduce the cost of college tuition and alleviate student debt burdens by capping itemized deductions, including charitable deductions, at 28 percent for certain families and individuals."

And the cost is actually extremely small, as I pointed out (the quoted figure is the projected 10-year cost in nominal dollars). I assumed 2.2% nominal GDP growth to get that 0.17% of GDP figure, but that estimate for GDP is way low (wanted to err on the side of overestimating the cost).

I read the OP, but I'm not just blindly going to believe something someone who is running for president has stated to be an actual fact without some serious sources backing it up. The OP says it's coming partially from the itemizing tax deductions... what about the rest? What does it mean by "in part by" and why isn't there something telling us from where the rest would come?

Since we're in debt I assume that we spend more than we make, so how can you keep saying it's a small part of GDP, so it's not a big deal? Every dollar of that GDP is currently earmarked for something else, so it seems difficult to find 1/3 of a trillion dollars just out of the blue and pretend there won't be any issue with it.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

im getting a finance degree with a risk management and insurance concentration and everyone ive talked to in business says its a great degree because of how broad finance is, also many finance jobs start at a good salary. I can't imagine getting a degree in operations and supply chain management, logistics, economics, etc. have a broad field to search for jobs in. Not to mention degrees in fields such as psychology, philosophy, gender studies, history, English , science, etc.

 

[Tom Servo]

im getting a finance degree with a risk management and insurance concentration and everyone ive talked to in business says its a great degree because of how broad finance is, also many finance jobs start at a good salary. I can't imagine getting a degree in operations and supply chain management, logistics, economics, etc. have a broad field to search for jobs in. Not to mention degrees in fields such as psychology, philosophy, gender studies, history, English , science, etc.

I have a finance degree.

Its the best business degree you can have because you come out knowing more about money and how to make it than any of the other courses. If you intrinsically understand the time value of money and compounding interest you are at a huge advantage over like 90% of the world.

 

[spamking]

Does anyone really think the overall cost of college will go down? I mean seriously. A college can reduce tuition every semester by fudging with their numbers. They just tack that reduction back into your bill as a new "fee".

 

[usmctanker242]

im getting a finance degree with a risk management and insurance concentration and everyone ive talked to in business says its a great degree because of how broad finance is, also many finance jobs start at a good salary. I can't imagine getting a degree in operations and supply chain management, logistics, economics, etc. have a broad field to search for jobs in. Not to mention degrees in fields such as psychology, philosophy, gender studies, history, English , science, etc.

Don't confuse psychology (study of the brain and its operations) other social sciences. Psychology is a legit field of study with serious job opportunities... though having a PhD is usually a must.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

I have a finance degree.

Its the best business degree you can have because you come out knowing more about money and how to make it than any of the other courses. If you intrinsically understand the time value of money and compounding interest you are at a huge advantage over like 90% of the world.

thats good to know. I also have some good connections, my mom works in insurance and knows a lot of great companies and my aunt is a branch manager at wells fargo, so i have a lot of resources if i need them, but honestly general ideas in finance are simple. I think all highschools should have mandatory finance classes to teach kids the basics of how to budget money, risk vs reward, investing and diversification, etc. Most of the people i know have no idea how to manage finances, forget about trying to invest or save money. Luckily for me ive always been conservative with my money, and ive been saving ever since ive had any money, Im quite happy with my investment porftfolio and didn't realize how easy it is to start one with a finance company.

 

[Dolomite]

Does anyone really think the overall cost of college will go down?

Come on man - read the OP!

THIS SHIT IS FUCKING FREE MAN!

Cost = $0 (it's all paid by all of those yacht driving Reagan Republicans having their generous itemized deduct-o-rooni's ripped out of their flesh)

But serious -

# of students enrolled in Public Colleges: 6,837,605

$350B divided by that = $51187.51

So the .gov money available to your average college-deprived stripper should probably be roughly $12,800/yr.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

Don't confuse psychology (study of the brain and its operations) other social sciences. Psychology is a legit field of study with serious job opportunities... though having a PhD is usually a must.

sorry, i didn't really know, i was just thinking of examples right off my head

 

[spamking]

Come on man - read the OP!

THIS SHIT IS FUCKING FREE MAN!

Cost = $0 (it's all paid by all of those yacht driving Reagan Republicans having their generous itemized deduct-o-rooni's ripped out of their flesh)

My bad.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There's a mismatch happening here. Why should tax dollars be used to fund such a wasteful system? Maybe if you implement something that scales money towards the the more demanded majors. But you might as well privatize tuition loans at that point.

If you're looking at all college as just being about job training, it's terribly inefficient. But that's a philistine view. I don't think the gap between the way we see things is bridgeable.

I read the OP, but I'm not just blindly going to believe something someone who is running for president has stated to be an actual fact without some serious sources backing it up. The OP says it's coming partially from the itemizing tax deductions... what about the rest? What does it mean by "in part by" and why isn't there something telling us from where the rest would come?

Don't know. Don't care. As I mentioned a couple of times already, it's a pretty insignificant cost. So they can pay for it by making revenue-generating changes that they should make anyway or they can pay for it by making an extremely small increase in some tax or whatever. Doesn't matter.

Since we're in debt I assume that we spend more than we make, so how can you keep saying it's a small part of GDP, so it's not a big deal?

Because it is no big deal and the fact that there is debt out there has no bearing on it.

Every dollar of that GDP is currently earmarked for something else, so it seems difficult to find 1/3 of a trillion dollars just out of the blue and pretend there won't be any issue with it.

GDP is the total value of all goods and services produced over a time period. We collect taxes from that (normally a little more than 17%, but we've been collecting way under that lately). So to pay for something that costs 0.17% of GDP, we would just need to bump up revenue imperceptibly (note, again, that since that money would be spent, some of it would come back so the increased need for revenue or debt would be less than 0.17% of GDP). You can oppose the bill or prefer that we spend on something else or whatever, of course, but there's no way to argue that the cost as presented is that significant.

 

[usmctanker242]

If you're looking at all college as just being about job training, it's terribly inefficient. But that's a philistine view. I don't think the gap between the way we see things is bridgeable.



Don't know. Don't care. As I mentioned a couple of times already, it's a pretty insignificant cost. So they can pay for it by making revenue-generating changes that they should make anyway or they can pay for it by making an extremely small increase in some tax or whatever. Doesn't matter.



Because it is no big deal and the fact that there is debt out there has no bearing on it.



GDP is the total value of all goods and services produced over a time period. We collect taxes from that (normally a little more than 17%, but we've been collecting way under that lately). So to pay for something that costs 0.17% of GDP, we would just need to bump up revenue imperceptibly (note, again, that since that money would be spent, some of it would come back so the increased need for revenue or debt would be less than 0.17% of GDP). You can oppose the bill or prefer that we spend on something else or whatever, of course, but there's no way to argue that the cost as presented is that significant.

Pretty much my entire point... nobody knows or cares, but they all say it's easy, and lets just do it.

This is why I asked if somebody could speak intelligently about this, so I would end up with your kind of "don't know, don't care" responses. I already stated that I think it's a good idea if ran correctly, but I'm just surprised that people pay so little attention that they think it's easy to just drum up 1/3 of a trillion dollars without that money coming from somewhere.

My big problem with this idea is that Hillary is selling it as a way to get votes, but even in this OP report it doesn't really, truly mention the source of this money. Stupid people will just see it, say "Oh, great, Hillary's giving away free school" and drop a vote for her.

 

[usmctanker242]

sorry, i didn't really know, i was just thinking of examples right off my head

Haha. Cheers man.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Pretty much my entire point... nobody knows or cares, but they all say it's easy, and lets just do it.

Let's!

I still want to hear more details (not of the funding but of the operation), but it sounds OK.

This is why I asked if somebody could speak intelligently about this, so I would end up with your kind of "don't know, don't care" responses.

I think the problem is that you didn't want someone to speak too intelligently about it. I showed that it's an immaterial portion of GDP, right? What else do you want?

I already stated that I think it's a good idea if ran correctly, but I'm just surprised that people pay so little attention that they think it's easy to just drum up 1/3 of a trillion dollars without that money coming from somewhere.

The money is nominal dollars over 10 years. That can be easily drummed up in the U.S. We're a big and rich country, you know.

 

[Gregolian]

I'm ignoring everything you posted and focusing on BBBBOOOOOBBBBSSSSS

 

[usmctanker242]

Let's!

I still want to hear more details (not of the funding but of the operation), but it sounds OK.



I think the problem is that you didn't want someone to speak too intelligently about it. I showed that it's an immaterial portion of GDP, right? What else do you want?



The money is nominal dollars over 10 years. That can be easily drummed up in the U.S. We're a big and rich country, you know.

What insight have you provided in relation to the acquiring of $350 billion dollars other than "it's easy?" Yes, we have tons of money, but every cent we make is already going somewhere. So if you're going to pull that money from somewhere it's leaving something else underfunded or deficient.

As for you showing anything all you've suggested is that it's a small percent of GDP. That doesn't really prove anything about the feasibility of actually acquiring that money. I just don't agree that setting this kind of money aside is such a simple task as you're making it out to be.