Massively increasing accessibility devalues previously existing and future degrees by flooding the labor market with them.

Same argument could be said for any kind of compulsory or free education could it not?
The value of a scribe was pretty good before the population was literate.

The concept of requiring it to be successful, isn't new. It's simply forced down our throats harder in school than it was before.

Trades I agree with you though. Electricians, plumbers, welders, these are all important to our countries infrastructure and success. But the classrooms seem to only care about anything that's regarded as STEM.

This notion that one "needs" college to live a successful life is relatively new.

What I really don't know is why there is so little emphasis on learning trades today. It doesn't seem to have been such a problem in the past.

With free higher education, more people will get educated which is good for the country.

Here in Sweden education is free and I'm currently taking one at a University. I wouldn't be able to do that otherwise without putting my family's economy at great risk.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 23, 2016, 01:30:22 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 23, 2016, 01:27:59 PM

How exactly do we make universities charge less? Ask them nicely?

One significant reason for rising tuition costs is the government's increasing willingness to subsidize them.

Why exactly does them getting more money from government mean they have to charge more? Honest question.

It's not that they have to; it's that they can. Say you're selling an expensive product, but one that people feel is often necessary to have, for $1,000. The government recognizes the value of your product and decides more people need access to it, so they'll chip in $200 for students that meet certain criteria (and they'll also give you tax breaks for facilities and stuff to help you out, because you sell good stuff). You realize that if you sell your product for $1,100, you'll still have the same number of customers but make 10% more money. It's obviously a simple analogy, but it works. It's a general economic principle that government subsidies create a higher supply of that product or service. That's not always a bad thing (it's actually often beneficial), but in this case it has allowed colleges to increase costs at an unreasonable rate.

With free higher education, more people will get educated which is good for the country.

Here in Sweden education is free and I'm currently taking one at a University. I wouldn't be able to do that otherwise without putting my family's economy at great risk.

Yeah but you have to import brown people to tax to sustain your government spending.

Quote from: Velox on February 23, 2016, 01:38:17 PM

With free higher education, more people will get educated which is good for the country.

Here in Sweden education is free and I'm currently taking one at a University. I wouldn't be able to do that otherwise without putting my family's economy at great risk.

Yeah but you have to import brown people to tax to sustain your government spending.

>using memes in a political debate

Quote from: eggsalad on February 23, 2016, 01:32:43 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 23, 2016, 01:30:22 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 23, 2016, 01:27:59 PM

How exactly do we make universities charge less? Ask them nicely?

One significant reason for rising tuition costs is the government's increasing willingness to subsidize them.

Why exactly does them getting more money from government mean they have to charge more? Honest question.

It's not that they have to; it's that they can. Say you're selling an expensive product, but one that people feel is often necessary to have, for $1,000. The government recognizes the value of your product and decides more people need access to it, so they'll chip in $200 for students that meet certain criteria (and they'll also give you tax breaks for facilities and stuff to help you out, because you sell good stuff). You realize that if you sell your product for $1,100, you'll still have the same number of customers but make 10% more money. It's obviously a simple analogy, but it works. It's a general economic principle that government subsidies create a higher supply of that product or service. That's not always a bad thing (it's actually often beneficial), but in this case it has allowed colleges to increase costs at an unreasonable rate.

How might this be solved if the demand for higher education really doesn't show any sign of falling? Does it have to be government intervention?

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 23, 2016, 01:41:19 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 23, 2016, 01:32:43 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 23, 2016, 01:30:22 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 23, 2016, 01:27:59 PM

How exactly do we make universities charge less? Ask them nicely?

One significant reason for rising tuition costs is the government's increasing willingness to subsidize them.

Why exactly does them getting more money from government mean they have to charge more? Honest question.

It's not that they have to; it's that they can. Say you're selling an expensive product, but one that people feel is often necessary to have, for $1,000. The government recognizes the value of your product and decides more people need access to it, so they'll chip in $200 for students that meet certain criteria (and they'll also give you tax breaks for facilities and stuff to help you out, because you sell good stuff). You realize that if you sell your product for $1,100, you'll still have the same number of customers but make 10% more money. It's obviously a simple analogy, but it works. It's a general economic principle that government subsidies create a higher supply of that product or service. That's not always a bad thing (it's actually often beneficial), but in this case it has allowed colleges to increase costs at an unreasonable rate.

How might this be solved if the demand for higher education really doesn't show any sign of falling? Does it have to be government intervention?

Not sure, that's an incredibly complicated question.

Quote from: Velox on February 23, 2016, 02:12:14 PM

Even if that were to be true, why is immigration a negative thing?

I don't see it as a really bad thing. It offers me opportunities for more varied experiences. I can meet interesting people that tribalism would otherwise keep out of my life. Plus, interesting food. In the case of the US, more Latin American immigration means more Christians coming in, which has the potential for further propagation of my values.

Quote

If it only brings economic gain as you say, then you'd only be opposed to it because you're a racist, plain and simple.

Economic gain isn't the only gain. It is one of the major gains. But you're massively simplifying the issue.
Immigration is a non-issue with a culturally and reproductively healthy native majority. That said, immigrants will inevitably have some impact on the native culture. In the case of Sweden, a country with a declining native population that is quickly approaching a state of self-hate, the newcomers have a very good chance of displacing the natives. If you value your culture, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof) or the values tied to these things, you should understand that bringing in rapidly-reproducing people from a totally different cultural background endangers them. It doesn't concern me, but I understand why one might be worried. To just toss away these concerns for fear of being "racist" is, frankly, fucking retarded.

I still don't see how that's relevant to free education.
It's not like it's majorly funded through immigrants.

Scotland has essentially elected tumblrinas as leaders so that means I get free tertiary education.

No idea what this entails for me in the future, but I'm pretty apprehensive about it.

I agree. Only problem for me is that it has become a prerequisite for many jobs. And honestly most companies could get better hires by basically running an apprenticeship program or hiring from college for certain jobs and helping people build up.

The biggest problem I feel is that getting a job in any industry requires too much prerequisites. But it is better in other places.

It is also the culture of hire and fire and short term career and job hopping.

Honestly I feel the economy need to become decentralized a lot more. Self Employment seems to be the trend. And with more of those you get more competition and thus more hiring.

Quote from: Mad Max on February 24, 2016, 12:22:45 AM

Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 24, 2016, 12:21:03 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on February 23, 2016, 11:31:20 PM

Is there a purpose in using """"""""""free"""""""""" repeatedly?

Because it isn't and cannot be truly free. The burden of cost is simply moved directly onto the shoulders of those who do not directly benefit from it.

It's as free as a car bought with stolen money. Really, as free as a stolen car.

Oh my bad, I didn't realize you were one of those "taxes are theft" folks.

There's nothing wrong with that notion. It is totally accurate.

I just don't care about the morality of it anymore. It is arbitrary, spooked morality.

What the fuck is "spooked morality"? Is this a meme you're trying to force?