the wealth of this country. Thanks for the post Uncle Joe.

Also, this is rather anecdotal, which is not to deny what the students are actually saying, but it's hardly a proper survey. Somehow I don't really think it's half of all college students across the nation.

In many schools, students who live on campus are required to buy a food plan. When my son attended Reed College, students found that even the minimum plan allowed enough food that they'd simply get extra, put it on a shelf in the cafeteria, and off campus students would help themselves.

to finance his last year at NYU, but is reluctant to accumulate more debt. (He also moved from Manhattan back to his parents home in Queens because of the high cost of living in the city.)

Another is the mother of a young child, struggling to put food on the table. While in school, she's working two part-time jobs and living in a homeless shelter so that she can finish her last year and pay back the $5000 loan that she needed to finance tuition.

It's clear that not every case is the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/nyregion/hunger-college-food-insecurity.html

....one needs to make sensible life choices while attending college.

....and didn't believe the world owed us a living. I started working when I was 14 years old, delivering newspapers on my bicycle. Through high school (where my typical day lasted from about 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM) I worked weekends (and all summer), and did so throughout my college career.

over the past thirty years while at the same time income has remained stagnant or even receded for the vast majority of working Americans while an ever increasing competitive world demands higher education just to maintain a decent standard of living and you're willing to pass judgment on two entire younger generations because they were born into this mess, is that right?

...under $0.30, etc.

College +1000% to whatever
Gas +1000% to about $2.50
Minimum wage +1000% to about $11.00

It's not simply anecdotal.

The U.S. still dominated the world, products labeled "made in Japan" were considered an aspersion (as being cheap,) Europe had just climbed out of the devastation from World War II.

Many colleges and universities in the 1960s were tuition free.

The 1000% increase in college tuition started 30 years ago that would be 1989 after Reaganomics had taken hold while the minimum wage was 3.35 an hour.

October 15, 1962 Increased from $1.00 to $1.15
October 15, 1964 Increased from $1.15 to $1.25
January 1, 1967 Increased from $1.25 to $1.50
February 1, 1968 Increased from $1.50 to $1.60
July 1, 1970 Increased from $1.60 to $1.85

I entered college in 1966, graduated in 1972 (two extra years due to military service) At the time CCNY (City University) and SUNY (State University) were tuition-free.

Now, what's this about college tuition going up 1000%.

them for struggling?

How self entitled are you?

with tuition, but you kids just want a handout!"

Like this is Onion level parody of Boomers at this point.

....that's 10X, over a period of time, but at the same time EVERYTHING increased a similar order of magnitude.

Things go up. EVERYTHING goes up. That is the point.

"Self entitled"? That's pretty obnoxious. I'm hardly "self entitled" - throughout my life I never had anything handed to me and never expected anyone to hand anything to me.

haven't even been close.

Is this a parody, this has to be a parody. Do you read your own posts?

Tuition has, by the way, increased a lot faster than inflation, as has medical costs.

today? ON EDIT: Or even be able to pay just tuition as you attend college?

No it cannot, again, you had things handed to you, including your opportunities, without even realizing it. The fact that you claim you did it yourself shows your own myopia.

EDIT2: How much in tuition did you pay for college?

at most, for most things, inflation has increasted maybe 50-100% since 1989. Look here:

https://www.farmersalmanac.com/a-look-back-at-what-things-used-to-cost-18228

Seriously, can you not make claims that aren't so easily disproven.

I went to a private liberal arts college in the late '60s. The tuition at the time was about $2K a year. Tuition at that college is now $54K a year. That $2,000, adjusted for inflation, is now about $16K, so why is my alma mater's tuition now $54K instead of $16K? And that amount of tuition is not at all unusual for private colleges these days. State universities aren't as expensive, but their tuitions have also increased far beyond the rate of inflation. The University of Minnesota's tuition was about $525; it's now about $16,000. $525 adjusts to $3,800, so how did they get to $16K?

Also all costs don't go up equally. I'll post it again...

"Now, what's this about college tuition going up 1000%."

(Okay that would be the cost of obtaining a college degree)

This would be about 1989.

Kind of like what Warren, Sanders, et. al. are proposing.

Try to do that today. My kids (and my wife & I) worked our asses off for their public education. Even with their grants and scholarships, and adjusting for inflation, they still have more debt than I did 40 years ago.





You can take your holier-than-thou attitude...

are rising so fast and at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation. Then we need to discuss what to do about it. This trend cannot continue.

of the published article was October of 2012 so thirty years before that would begin in 1982 not 1989.

Plus, I had a job in downtown Chicago. That was in the opposite direction from school, which meant that I had a 30-mile daily commute. I also worked on Saturdays.

But to the subject at hand, I spent the evening with three college freshmen. All were happy with their separate universities' food service, though they were thoroughly enjoying non-institutional cooking while at home. With a chef father, they've been foodies since birth.

You're correct, it is all about sensible life choices.

Seriously, its all about sensible life choices?

What if you can't live at home due to lack of stability at home?

This lack of empathy or even worse, lack of seeing this as a problem is more at home in the other party.

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2019, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

and poor people should pull themselves up by their boot straps. They have a "I got mine fuck you" if you can't do it attitude.

I graduated 30 plus years ago and back then, you could work a summer job and pay for a semester's tuition or more!

Today, a summer job might pay for 1 course for 1 semester, even if one lives at home.

Where is the line drawn? Is it 5 years. 10,20,30,40?

So those of us that are older, who struggled to pay for college while working two jobs to get by during the school year...what do we get? College may have been far less expensive then, yet our paychecks were a lot smaller.

I did the same thing, even was able to pay back my college loan early, but it maxed out at 5 digits, not 6 or more, and I have the ability to think beyond myself and maybe feel that others shouldn't share the struggles I had. What is with older generations wanting to make things harder for their kids and grandkids?

Seriously, what the fuck is up with this shit?

And many college graduates are burdened with massive student debt.

Recommended.

It's amazing what our culture/society most values.

And millions of average workers are deluded by the propaganda story involving an average worker becoming a millionaire by virtue of hard work.

I say deluded because the US is massively class stratified. If one is born working class, one will generally never rise above that.

for at least 40 years thanks to Reaganism and perpetuation by the corporate media conglomerates.

Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

But in Europe, climbing the ladder is easier than most people believe



HOW likely is someone to move up the economic ladder? A new study by Alberto Alesina, Stefanie Stantcheva and Edoardo Teso of Harvard University compares perceptions of social mobility in five countries—America, Britain, France, Italy and Sweden—against actual levels. It finds that Americans tend to be optimistic, while Europeans tend to be too pessimistic. An American born to a household in the bottom 20% of earnings, for instance, only has a 7.8% chance of reaching the top 20% when they grow up. Americans surveyed thought the probability was 11.7%.

Politically left-leaning respondents are naturally more doubtful about the scale of social mobility, and are more likely to support redistributive government policies, than conservative ones. But Mr Alesina and his colleagues also find that people of different political stripes also respond differently to new information. When given pessimistic information about social mobility, left-wing respondents became even more likely to support economic redistribution. In contrast, right-wing respondents’ support for redistribution did not change. Perhaps, the authors suggest, right-leaning respondents see government as “the cause of the problem, not the solution”.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country

No, really. I am curious as to what the problem is with reports like that. We know that food insecurity is a big problem in this country now for a growing percentage of adults and children, so why wouldn't students factor in there?

What would you get or prove if this information was wrong? Do you believe otherwise and that there is no problem, so no big deal?

Maybe you could produce some information that contradicts student hunger problem and that would clear things up.

to have extra money to pay for things while parents supported him and he didn't have to pay tuition. He didn't starve, so students today must be lying about it.

Well, I was in a similar position with my liberal arts degree back in the '70's. I eventually even got my own apartment in the middle of it and worked as a waiter and other jobs for my necessities. I went to a community college, (in Chicago) and was eligible for the BEOG and SEOG which payed for my credits and textbooks, which really helped me make it through and get the degree.

I fully appreciate what modern students are going through in comparison to that, even without a need for statistics. I have that empathy for the entire, young generation, all things considered and for what they face today by comparison. I kind of think us elders should be benefactors, mentors, wise old owls offering what we can from our experience when possible and being supportive. When I think of the world they are going into, I can am a bit relieved that I am not young because of what I am seeing now. Your heart kind of goes out to this generation in a "Brave New Word, it's wonders to behold."

It seems like that would be the way to approach it, but I guess I can't relate to feeling some sort of generational spite or whatever it would be that would illicit negative views or even apathy.

is the complete disconnect from the reality of college and jobs.

Far too many students get totally set on majoring in (just to come up with an example or two) anthropology, or 17th Century French poetry with zero understanding of the job market in those fields. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for intellectual inquiry, after all, I'm the person who attended college on and off for more than 40 years, but let's get real.

I have also told many young people to go ahead and major in whatever most interests them, but not to lose sight of the fact that after they get that degree they need to support themselves. Too many young people, and their parents, somehow don't get that message. They somehow believe that no matter what they major in, a good job will be there when they are done. ARRGGHHHH! I also know that the college resource center (which goes by different names at different schools) which is intended to help the students get a job, universally complain that the students simply don't go to them. And they have lots of tools and resources to help the students. Regardless of the major.

Here's something else. It really isn't all that terrible to take a year or two or four more to complete school, if along the way you have a job and don't incur as much debt. Really. Not that terrible. Some years back a woman I knew told me her daughter was remaining in school, continuing to take classes and pile on debt because once she left school the clock would start ticking for repayment. So she thought that taking on more debt was better than repaying? I since lost contact with the mom, but I've often wondered how the daughter fared. I'm guessing she's one of the ones profiled in an article with $150k in debt and a sob story about how it's so hard, and how she'll never pay it back, leaving out the crappy decision to go into that debt in the first place.

Yet another point. There are many vocational tracks, especially at the fabulous community colleges across this country, that lead to well paying jobs. So what if it's not a four year degree? Who gives a flying fuck if you're earning a good living? Plus, you can always read and study or take classes that interest you later on. Yes, you can. Meanwhile, getting through a program in two years, sometimes less, has a lot going for it.

On a personal note, my younger son got a degree from a good four year school (psychology major, minor in marketing) and to my distress and annoyance, after he graduated, went back to pizza delivery instead of getting what most of us would think of as a real job. However, he supported himself, which is the point. He knew that neither his father nor I (we'd divorced while he was in college) would give him money. If he needed more than the pizza delivery job availed, he could get a second job or a better job. My point here is that parents need to convey clearly to their college children that once they get that degree they're on their own. Stop supporting them.

Tell taxpayers that they will pay for someone to get a degree in 17th century French poetry at 30k a year. Then, when the student can’t get a job with that degree.....do...what?

It’s going to lose us an election.

My oldest, who has two master's degrees, received deferments while she stayed out of school and worked. She took leaves of absence to do work related to her area of study. Maybe this girl should have checked about deferments.

Also, people who have degrees in esoteric areas can often find jobs where their knowledge is appreciated. These don't have to be in academic fields, but they can be.

One of my kids is an academic librarian. But she also lectures two classes a week. She works with students who are the first in their families to attend college. Many of them need extra help just to navigate the whole college experience. She works with a lot of immigrants and dreamers. Also, her library is happy to have people with backgrounds in anthropology, music, and other unusual areas. They can offer special knowledge.

I agree with you about the vocational tracks. That can be a very good choice for people. And they don't end up burdened with debt.

So many don't. And almost no one bothers to research the job prospects in their fields.

Heck, nearly 40 years ago I knew someone whose husband had just started training to be a barber. I recall thinking, "That's not a great career choice." And when he graduated barber school, he could not find a job. Had he bothered to research barber job prospects ahead of time? Nope. And that wasn't even the kind of field you'd think would be a problem.

I am highly pragmatic. I think about these kinds of things all the time, so I'm driven bat-shit crazy by the people who say things like, "I always LOVED costume design in 18th century Russian drama, and I don't understand why I cannot now find a job." Jesus H Fucking Christ. As I said above, it's fine to major in or study what you love, but don't forget you are going to need to make a living when you finish college. So do a bit of research to see what jobs are out there. And DO NOT COMPLAIN if it turns out there really aren't any jobs in 18th century Russian drama. You will probably make a fine barista.

I immediately disliked both when I found out they spent years sitting in classrooms for Ph.Ds in music composing (his) and anthropology (hers) with no intention of working in those fields. Evidently hoarding higher degrees is an end in itself. Upward mobility through expensive education with no actual mobility and dept. Weird.

do not often intend not to work in that field. I'm going to guess that's something only those who aren't worrying about how they pay for those degrees can begin to do.

I have a son who is in a PhD program in astronomy. He fully intends to work in that field. As an aside, those who are in the hard sciences don't have to worry about paying for school, once past the undergraduate level. It works this way: tuition and fees are paid for at the graduate (Master's or PhD) level. And there's a stipend for being a TA (teaching assistant) or RA (research assistant) which is almost a very base level of living, meaning rent and groceries. When I tell this to the parents of students in other fields they're astonished, but it's true. I actually learned this when my son was in high school, because his physics teacher told me this.

So yeah, if your kid is even remotely interested in the hard sciences, encourage them. School after the bachelor's degree will be free.

Otherwise, go into some good vocational area (plumbing, HVAC, medical records, paralegal) and spend no more than two years at a community college and go to work in a decent paying field.

The restaurant couple are middle or upper middle class. They feel the need to prove they're intellectuals by collecting advanced degrees, but also obsessed with being creative. Have a PhD but open a restaurant to express themselves artistically.

And the tuition is paid for by the university. I did not know it was not true in other fields.

My 22 year old son graduated debt free from a 2 year technical college as an industrial electrician. He had job offers before he even graduated and was already working as an apprentice during the day while attending school at night. He is in a union facility now making $30 an hour and getting around 48 hours a week, he's making about $75k a year with great benefits right out of the gate. The average electrician at his employer makes $106k a year with overtime, it takes a few years to work up the pay scale levels though but he's motivated to do it as quickly as possible.

I advise younger people to go into trades if they want solid employment (electrician, plumber, nursing, etc.).

I mean, they talk about kids these days not having responsibility while they were able to work through college while that college was tuition free and minimum wage had more buying power. How dare this generation be born in a time when those things were already taken away.

Maybe it is worth noting this in order for people to consider what you are relating?

I don't think we live in a total vacuum and my subjective impression of this culture as a whole is that the commercialism, capitalism and consumerism, (along with an emphasis on profit and acquisition) have discouraged empathy and sincere responses and made apathy and reactions a form of defense mechanism; one that really does more harm than good and probably does not work the way people might expect.

One can get deeper insights into this from a sociological perspective. We all have our biases and, being biases we see through them, (filters) rather than seeing them for what they are, so that's a good place to start looking because, a strong confirmation bias, (the mother of all biases) can be mistaken for a lack of empathy in a general sense, though that does not deflect from the importance of empathy and the corresponding compassion that goes with it, (both of which are beneficial and advanced human traits).

Even neurologically, we have mirror neurons that enable us to sense and feel the "other" in a way that helps us ascertain the nature and state of living beings from animals to humans. It is built into the nervous system, but we can learn to ignore and avoid it, especially if we are adverse to feeling discomfort and only interested in maintaining our comfort zone, all else be damned. It's easy to fall into that trap in a culture of commodities with advertising that acts as propaganda for lavish care of one's self over others. Yet, a society is really only the close and loose-knit structures of human connections and interactions based on consensual agreements mostly. If that breaks down, (which may be what we are seeing hints of) then the self-centered behaviors and hermetically enclosed thinking becomes very detrimental to the culture and its stability and cohesiveness. That is a good incentive to take on the problem of empathy and compassion as a personal investigation and practice.

I will leave here a suggestion to see The Century of the Self by the BBC on YouTube. It is a very basic primer as to some of factors that have been intentional influences on this culture for better or for worse. It has been methodical and even scientific and it continues today. While media and advertisements are not the only influences involved, they permeate the culture and many people are exposed to large amounts of it to the point that it can have a subliminal impact on their thinking and behavior. Of course, there is much more to this phenomenon, but you can see the setup for the modern Western mindset in that documentary and go from there.

Thanks!

true Anti-Capitalists you would find on this board. I find that Capitalism really does force people to abandon their humanity and become Homo Economist, the selfish human, which is the opposite of what we had to be to survive for over 150,000 years.

Things are much better for today’s youth then it was in our day. Technology has made it that way.

There will always be issues. But by any objective measure, the standard of living is much better today.

The buying power of Generation X and Millennials is lower than it was for Boomers and the Silent Generation. Both of them were able to get damn near free college and subsidized loans for home ownership, something that is extremely difficult if not impossible for their kids and grandkids to get.

Technology is better, yet cost of living is higher, wages are stagnant or decreasing. Sure you can get some amazing tech, like the Iphone, but that doesn't help pay for bread.

Four year college students become obese from their freshman to senior years. So half are starving and half are overeating?