Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can't agree about subsidizing t [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)21. That's still ridiculously simplistic
"People go to college to earn more money"
...which means that they are going to pay more taxes. But it goes well beyond that as well.
This statement is a sad reflection on the way that everything in society has been reduced to a matter of self-interest, but the fact of the matter is that having educated persons is a general social benefit.
That's the entire proposition behind public schools. Quite frankly, a lot of poor people could benefit more directly by having their ten year olds work to earn money in sweatshops. They gain nothing by having their kids in school through 12th grade.
This sounds a lot like "Why do I pay taxes for schools when I don't have kids?"
But it is simply arbitrary to say, "Well, yes, of course we all benefit by having people educated through 12th grade, but if we provided a single day more, it would be bad for people at the lower economic end."
What nonsense - we require children to go to school up to age 18 as a mandatory proposition in most states. Above that, it is usually discretionary whether to admit a child older than that, but the point remains the same. All you are doing is simply drawing a line at 18 years of age, or at 12 grades, and saying that there is some reason other than your arbitrary line that there is no further public benefit.
It is of tremendous benefit - even to persons who do not pursue further education - to have educated people. Someone from an underprivileged background who completes, say, a business degree and goes on to become an entrepreneur is GOING TO EMPLOY OTHER PEOPLE.
Additionally, those higher income earners are also higher income spenders - for goods and services in the local economy that come from other people in it.
Pure nonsense. To imagine that college education is merely a vehicle for those individuals to earn more money, misses the entire point of why we have public education at all.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can't agree about subsidizing t [View all]
Eugene
Apr 2019
OP
Yes, he does realize that, but he's asking if that's the best use of our money.
marylandblue
Apr 2019
#8
But they'd still have to take enough cumulative classes to have learned something
The Velveteen Ocelot
Apr 2019
#29
Back when I went to college (1960s), there was no tuition at the state colleges
MineralMan
Apr 2019
#10
Not everyone is cut out for college, but you can't get a well-paying job without it.
marylandblue
Apr 2019
#14
As a concept: free college its fine. Practically speaking, what does that actually mean?
tymorial
Apr 2019
#12
It should be free or significantly subsidized for those whose families cannot afford it
Buckeyeblue
Apr 2019
#15
I agree with subsidizing. People should pay something because it is a thing of value. If you
UniteFightBack
Apr 2019
#40
Well, I worked at a major corporation and we (in my area) hired IT professionals out of ...
SWBTATTReg
Apr 2019
#32