Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
That definitely does not seem fair to me. If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
That definitely does not seem fair to me. If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?
My guess? Inequality in the level of education Stockholm vs the rest of the country? Seems sad. I wish there was a Swedish band that was popular enough to have a website where I could float some observations and suggestions.
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
That definitely does not seem fair to me. If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?
My guess? Inequality in the level of education Stockholm vs the rest of the country? Seems sad. I wish there was a Swedish band that was popular enough to have a website where I could float some observations and suggestions.
My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.
My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.
So it's too expensive for the non wealthy to go to university because of the cost of living? That's morally wrong. Further the rural are subsidizing the wealthy in Stockholm, creating further economic inequality.
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
What is a "College" in Sweden then? Did you gather that in your research, what's the equivalent?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.
So it's too expensive for the non wealthy to go to university because of the cost of living? That's morally wrong. Further the rural are subsidizing the wealthy in Stockholm, creating further economic inequality.
Name one person who applied for the University in Stockholm, and did not attend because of the cost of living? No need to spin a yarn out of nothing.
Living in Stockholm compared to the rest of Sweden, I am certain differ less than lets say San Francisco/New York to smaller americans cities. And yes, I've lived in Stockholm, Gothenburg and a bunch of smaller cities here.
How much does the cost of living differ from SanFran and something like... Haddonfield or Springwood - compared to Stockholm and my hometown Trollhättan? You actually think it is bigger in Sweden than in the US?
Not saying Swedens situation when it comes to access to student apartments and living, and the levels of loans/grants is perfect. But we are not on a fundamental level paywalling poorer students out of schools. But you seem to like that system, because why care about leveling the playing field for, and helping your fellow citizens? Not a very american thing to do, it seems from this thread.
And taxes and trying to create a fair place to live, subsidizing is part of that. But if you'r favorite category on pornhub is "predatory capitalism" I guess that word will sting.
"Why should my taxes go to helping things be more fair"
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
My guess? Inequality in the level of education Stockholm vs the rest of the country? Seems sad. I wish there was a Swedish band that was popular enough to have a website where I could float some observations and suggestions.
My guess is that even though the tuition is free room and board are not and we know that it is expensive as hell to live in Sweden.
"expensive as hell". Yes, we pay more VAT and a bit more taxes than you, but those taxes goes to things that help us all out.
Didn't we break down your pay as a teacher to my brother's here in Sweden, and I didn't recall you having more left at the end of the month than him? Might remember it wrong ofc.
Here you have an easy breakdown of SANDERS COMMIE HELL:
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Just want to add, that I dislike Sweden in many regards.
But the philosophy of helping each other (even though that is being slowly chipped away) is a lot better foundation for a country than "fuck everyone that isn't me".
And Sanders seems to agree. So he will get my vote in the primary. Or maybe Warren. Or Buddaedgedge. Maybe Beto.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Nevermind, I bow out of this discussion. If you want to keep the US a broken oddity when better options are on display then go for it. Vote for Trump 2020. Coal is coming back and don't forget to invade Iran.
Now time to work. Pay that 25% in taxes on my pay. Some of that will help people get daycare for their kids, some of it will allow women to stay home after child birth, some of that will help kids that need it get glasses. Fuck me, for my taxes helping my fellow citizens out.
My boss is looking at my screen. Fuck. Have fun people!
"YOU ARE" ROCKS.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university) Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university) Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
I agree. Case in point, all those educated people in Canada and you still don’t have good pizza!
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
So, what percentage did Sweden get? What is the difference to the US; as in - what is the difference between being sixth and "DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE TOP TEN LIST"
EDIT: So Sweden is 15th place. 46,4% to 41,9%. In one of those countries out of the US and Sweden, everyone has the same possibility to get into the best school, regardless of economic background (obviously there are other reasons why kids from poorer, or less educated homes have worse chances of reaching University studies).
If you look at people 25-34:
We are the same.
So what takeaway can you draw from that @mcgruff10 ? Throw something up on the wall.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university) Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
I agree. Case in point, all those educated people in Canada and you still don’t have good pizza!
Come visit Toronto, McGruff (which autocorrect hilarious made into McGriddle), and I’ll find you a great one! Roman or Neapolitan style?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
That definitely does not seem fair to me. If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?
Give it an educated guess? And don't peek at @mrussel1 answer. That is cheating.
I also gladly take a link to those numbers @mrussel1 ?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university) Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
I agree. Case in point, all those educated people in Canada and you still don’t have good pizza!
Come visit Toronto, McGruff (which autocorrect hilarious made into McGriddle), and I’ll find you a great one! Roman or Neapolitan style?
Either one sounds good to me. I haven’t been to Toronto since 2011, I think it is time for a little trip.
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university) Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
I agree. Case in point, all those educated people in Canada and you still don’t have good pizza!
Come visit Toronto, McGruff (which autocorrect hilarious made into McGriddle), and I’ll find you a great one! Roman or Neapolitan style?
Either one sounds good to me. I haven’t been to Toronto since 2011, I think it is time for a little trip.
The OECD defined a country’s adult education level as the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 64 who have completed some kind of tertiary education in the form of a two-year degree, four-year degree or vocational program.
Here are the 10 most educated countries:
6. United States
45.67 percent
1. Canada
56.27 percent
You go Canada!
I know this might be tangential to the debate at hand, but I don’t love the “most educated” as being a solid benchmark defining the skills of a nation. I went to university and studied structural engineering (steel/concrete-framed structures, bridge design, masonry, etc.). I did it because I hoped it would provide a rigour in learning and thinking logically, but I found my work ethic only really developed when I found something that interested me, dug my teeth in, and learned obsessively (i.e. at least five years after graduating). I also feel my desire to have logical rigour only developed when I had the accountability put on me that lacking it would cost others - those on my team.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university) Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
I agree. Case in point, all those educated people in Canada and you still don’t have good pizza!
Come visit Toronto, McGruff (which autocorrect hilarious made into McGriddle), and I’ll find you a great one! Roman or Neapolitan style?
Either one sounds good to me. I haven’t been to Toronto since 2011, I think it is time for a little trip.
Great couple of days those were. Sitting a few rows from the band and Chris Cornell and their families at the TIFF premiere, then ran into Neil Young near a theatre and got to shake his hands and thank him for his impact on my life, then two epic PJ shows.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
That definitely does not seem fair to me. If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?
Nothing is free...taxes have to pay for these things. Sweden is likely running debt, so not only are they free they are accumulating debt and interest payments as well. I would love to see a government balance the budget and still provide all those social programs...wonder if citizens of those countries would be willing to see a huge tax increase to support these programs...
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
That definitely does not seem fair to me. If college is free there then why don't the rural folk go?
Nothing is free...taxes have to pay for these things. Sweden is likely running debt, so not only are they free they are accumulating debt and interest payments as well. I would love to see a government balance the budget and still provide all those social programs...wonder if citizens of those countries would be willing to see a huge tax increase to support these programs...
You still haven't responded to if you just posted that link yesterday without even reading the article. With you not even knowing what the article was about or in the end concluded?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
You still haven't responded to if you just posted that link yesterday without even reading the article. With you not even knowing what the article was about or in the end concluded?
How do you support your regressive social structure that has rural citizens subsidizing education for the wealthy elite in the cities? It just seems wrong. Why haven't you done anything about it?
You still haven't responded to if you just posted that link yesterday without even reading the article. With you not even knowing what the article was about or in the end concluded?
How do you support your regressive social structure that has rural citizens subsidizing education for the wealthy elite in the cities? It just seems wrong. Why haven't you done anything about it?
i asked you to provide a link for your numbers that you are basing your assumptions on. Lets take it step by step. So please do that first.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
You still haven't responded to if you just posted that link yesterday without even reading the article. With you not even knowing what the article was about or in the end concluded?
How do you support your regressive social structure that has rural citizens subsidizing education for the wealthy elite in the cities? It just seems wrong. Why haven't you done anything about it?
i asked you to provide a link for your numbers that you are basing your assumptions on. Lets take it step by step. So please do that first.
Second, you continue to misunderstand the education structure in the United States. The low income households have ample opportunity to send their children to college for very low to no tuition cost. Families with income up to $55,000 per year receive federal grants up to 10,000 per year, and that is excluding state grants and scholarships. As I pointed out to PJ Soul much earlier, which either you didn't read or digest, the problem area is in the middle class.
A country should have low debt when they only need to budget for snow plows and pizza cutting scissors.
I think we've already determined that they don't have to pay for national defense. Leave that to everyone else.
And another country spends 55% of its budget on the military while its citizens are dying from lack of healthcare.
And no, I am not talking about North Korea or Isengard.
So please stay on topic.
You'd be dead already or goose stepping if it wasn't for that military, but I believer we established that. I'll type what I wish, but thanks letting me know you care.
A country should have low debt when they only need to budget for snow plows and pizza cutting scissors.
I think we've already determined that they don't have to pay for national defense. Leave that to everyone else.
And another country spends 55% of its budget on the military while its citizens are dying from lack of healthcare.
And no, I am not talking about North Korea or Isengard.
So please stay on topic.
You'd be dead already or goose stepping if it wasn't for that military, but I believer we established that. I'll type what I wish, but thanks letting me know you care.
And you wouldn't have IKEA without us.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
A country should have low debt when they only need to budget for snow plows and pizza cutting scissors.
I think we've already determined that they don't have to pay for national defense. Leave that to everyone else.
And another country spends 55% of its budget on the military while its citizens are dying from lack of healthcare.
And no, I am not talking about North Korea or Isengard.
So please stay on topic.
You'd be dead already or goose stepping if it wasn't for that military, but I believer we established that. I'll type what I wish, but thanks letting me know you care.
Also, a paywall in the states is when you have to pay to access content in a website. I don't understand how you are using it.
You don't? It's pretty obvious, right? As a metaphor? He is talking about how the cost of post-secondary tuition in the USA is restrictive for lower income people, so the rich get far better educations while the poor don't get much or any, simply because of the burden of tuition fees at the beter universities. That makes it so the entire post-secondary systems leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Most people support an education system that ideally has equality when it comes to access, or at least doesn't make it impossible for lower income kids to access the high quality education that rich kids can (especially with the whole scamming rich kids into schools thing that the US has going on). The USA has the opposite of that. It has a tiered system that permits the rich to buy the best educations, leaving the poor to slog through community college systems. It confuses me that there are any Americans who are okay with the way things are now, along with healthcare.
First, I have no idea how you got that from his statement about a paywall. He's never written anything to that depth here before. Also, I think your statement on the tiered education system is completely overstated. Every university has programs that target low income households to give them a chance to go to school very inexpensively. This is probably the fourth reason why core tuition has gone up, according to some research; the number of students who receive free tuition naturally increases the cost for those that do not. Second, we have excellent state universities in this country with relatively reasonable rates of tuition, should your family make more money than what is necessary to qualify for assistance. If you choose to attend one of the 'first tier' universities that are typically private (Ivy league for example has only one state school I believe), that's on you. Your point is accurate on the comparison to healthcare, but perhaps not the reason you state. Medical in this country is just about free for those at or around the poverty line, with Medicaid and SCHIP. It's those that make too much to qualify but not enough to handle the burdent(lower middle to middle class) that see the greatest % of their income dedicated to healthcare. The same can be said for post secondary educations. However in this country, no employer gives a shit where you did your first two years. It's only where your degree is from that can make a difference. So doing two years of Juco and then 2 years in a state university (particularly if you are fortunate like me to have UVA and W&M as state schools, or just about any in California) makes a very reasonable expense. But you have to finish. The vast majority of people who have defaulted student loan debt did not finish school.
So, how is this an argument against having it be tuition free? Sounds like a lot of words to say "tuition free is more fair"
Why is it more fair for everyone to pay for a social benefit that not everyone takes AND means that individual will make more money in the future. It's the opposite of progressive economics. If going to college means you make more money in teh future (it generally does) then there is no reason for the government (read: the people) to pay for that. Healthcare is different because there is a human right element. None such exists for college.
Because it is in the country's best interest to keep its population educated and educated for the jobs the country needs to fill.
It is also about being as fair as possible, wherever you come from or who your family us - your wallet should not determine your chances to education. Like PJ_Sould explained. It is vile to paywall education. I would say that is a better and more noble way to look at it than "fuck em, let the rich buy themselves into the best schools".
Using economic means in society to strengthen equality and making life more fair its citizens should be something to strive for, not run away from.
I also think that is fare that a woman has the right by law to stay home from work after giving birth. No humans right aspect in that I guess either. So I understand why the US would think that "Let the rich be able to stay home, and let the poor get back to work before they even healed up".
Different ways to look at society, and the value of a citizen. I would like to add, your view expressed above is depressing.
Sweden: "The peoples Home" -- Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way", folkhemmet was viewed as midway between capitalism and socialism. The base of the folkhem vision is that the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another. The Swedish Social Democrats' successes in the postwar period is often explained by the fact that the party managed to motivate major social reforms with the idea of the folkhem and the national family's joint endeavor.
The US: B-b-but why should I have to help out?
Well this is interesting isn't it? The US has a higher percentage of college graduation than Sweden. US is number 2 in the world and Sweden isn't even in the top 10. In fact, for 2016 70% of all US high school graduates attended college the following fall. Sweden, from what I could gather online, is about 43%. Why then, if Sweden cares more about its people than the US, does the Swedish attendance and graduation rate lag so far behind the US? So now in Sweden you have 100% of adults paying taxes to send 43% to college. Talk about a regressive tax, sheesh.
You must by lying, Sweden beats the United States in everything.
Oh and more shocking information, 70% of Stockholm residents under 24 HAVE attended university. Outside the city, it drops to 17%. Stockholm is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. So now the rural folk of Sweden are paying to send the rich city folk to school. Is that fair? Doesn't seem to be.
Okej @mrussel1 - you claim, that "outside the city" it drops to 17%".
That reads as: "Outside of the city, the number is 17"
When in fact the article article says: Munkfors, in rural community of roughly 3,000 in Värmland County, did worst with only 17.6 percent of all 24-year-olds having studied at a university.
That is not an average or account for outside of this "the city" you speak of - that is the lowest number accounted for in one specific heavily (steel) industry-focused community. And it should be 18%, and not 17% if you know how to count.
So, you are misleading the people reading this board and especially dear @mcgruff10 who jumped on the chance to carry a tourch next to you.
So, this proves one of two things:
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
So are you arguing that the Swedish rate of 24 year olds that have attended college isn't half of what the 2016 US rate is? Split that hair all you want, but according to the report, the number of Swedes that do or have attended college substantially trails the US. And with that number being so low, the taxes are inherently regressive. Last, what would happen if Sweden had a 70% college attendance rate? Would your deficit balloon? Would they kill the program? I guess I could draw the conclusion that maybe Swedish lawmakers don't want a high attendance rate because it would make the program untenable. Man, your society is really unequal. It's quite sad.
Comments
Name one person who applied for the University in Stockholm, and did not attend because of the cost of living? No need to spin a yarn out of nothing.
Living in Stockholm compared to the rest of Sweden, I am certain differ less than lets say San Francisco/New York to smaller americans cities. And yes, I've lived in Stockholm, Gothenburg and a bunch of smaller cities here.
How much does the cost of living differ from SanFran and something like... Haddonfield or Springwood - compared to Stockholm and my hometown Trollhättan? You actually think it is bigger in Sweden than in the US?
Not saying Swedens situation when it comes to access to student apartments and living, and the levels of loans/grants is perfect. But we are not on a fundamental level paywalling poorer students out of schools. But you seem to like that system, because why care about leveling the playing field for, and helping your fellow citizens? Not a very american thing to do, it seems from this thread.
And taxes and trying to create a fair place to live, subsidizing is part of that. But if you'r favorite category on pornhub is "predatory capitalism" I guess that word will sting.
"Why should my taxes go to helping things be more fair"
Didn't we break down your pay as a teacher to my brother's here in Sweden, and I didn't recall you having more left at the end of the month than him? Might remember it wrong ofc.
Here you have an easy breakdown of SANDERS COMMIE HELL:
But the philosophy of helping each other (even though that is being slowly chipped away) is a lot better foundation for a country than "fuck everyone that isn't me".
And Sanders seems to agree. So he will get my vote in the primary. Or maybe Warren. Or Buddaedgedge. Maybe Beto.
Now time to work. Pay that 25% in taxes on my pay. Some of that will help people get daycare for their kids, some of it will allow women to stay home after child birth, some of that will help kids that need it get glasses. Fuck me, for my taxes helping my fellow citizens out.
My boss is looking at my screen. Fuck. Have fun people!
"YOU ARE" ROCKS.
Hard skills I use from my education: torrenting learning materials, statistics (a high school course from prior to university)
Soft skills I use from my education: the concept of a minimally viable product - doing the least necessary to get the desired output
Skills developed since education: SQL programming, C/SIDE, sales system design, basic neural networks and machine learning fundamentals, business architecture, leadership frameworks and mentalities - any other thing I want to learn, because it’s all out there and accessible.
Look at the hiring patterns of companies like Google. More and more, the value is put on the people with what I’ve seen described as ‘grit’ - the tenacity to persevere through failures; the people who chase that high of accomplishment regardless of their IQ or prior education through their own resourcefulness. Of course, in a metric-obsessed world, these intangibles are inconvenient when we mostly try to grow our populations through dangled carrots of high success rates, but I think it’s time to think differently about what really matters.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EDIT: So Sweden is 15th place. 46,4% to 41,9%. In one of those countries out of the US and Sweden, everyone has the same possibility to get into the best school, regardless of economic background (obviously there are other reasons why kids from poorer, or less educated homes have worse chances of reaching University studies).
If you look at people 25-34:
We are the same.
So what takeaway can you draw from that @mcgruff10 ? Throw something up on the wall.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I also gladly take a link to those numbers @mrussel1 ?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Canada: 89,7%
USA: 103,8 %
Sweden: 39%
Anything else @Meltdown99 ?
You still haven't responded to if you just posted that link yesterday without even reading the article. With you not even knowing what the article was about or in the end concluded?
And no, I am not talking about North Korea or Isengard.
So please stay on topic.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-high-school-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm
https://www.thelocal.se/20120913/43196
Let me know when your Google search is fixed.
Second, you continue to misunderstand the education structure in the United States. The low income households have ample opportunity to send their children to college for very low to no tuition cost. Families with income up to $55,000 per year receive federal grants up to 10,000 per year, and that is excluding state grants and scholarships. As I pointed out to PJ Soul much earlier, which either you didn't read or digest, the problem area is in the middle class.
That reads as: "Outside of the city, the number is 17"
When in fact the article article says: Munkfors, in rural community of roughly 3,000 in Värmland County, did worst with only 17.6 percent of all 24-year-olds having studied at a university.
That is not an average or account for outside of this "the city" you speak of - that is the lowest number accounted for in one specific heavily (steel) industry-focused community. And it should be 18%, and not 17% if you know how to count.
So, you are misleading the people reading this board and especially dear @mcgruff10 who jumped on the chance to carry a tourch next to you.
So, this proves one of two things:
1. You have a hard time understanding text (could be, with you claiming ignorance on my use use of "paywalling")
or
2. You are arguing in bad faith and skewing data in your favor. Which is just shitty on the level of your dear president.
What is it?
Last, what would happen if Sweden had a 70% college attendance rate? Would your deficit balloon? Would they kill the program? I guess I could draw the conclusion that maybe Swedish lawmakers don't want a high attendance rate because it would make the program untenable. Man, your society is really unequal. It's quite sad.