Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can't agree about subsidizing t

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can’t agree about subsidizing tuition.

What is a college education for, and who benefits from it?

By Elizabeth Popp Berman April 5 at 10:50 AM

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg wants you to know he doesn’t believe in free college. He said as much on Wednesday night — to an audience of college students, no less:

Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidize a minority who earn more because they did.

Buttigieg isn’t the first progressive to argue against ending tuition. In fact, the argument that tuition-free college is regressive was, until the past few years, pretty standard on the wonkish left. But by thinking about college education in terms of human capital, it misses out on important aspects of providing public goods. This explains why Buttigieg’s proposal has raised questions from many progressives.

The origins of the Buttigieg position about college

The Buttigieg argument goes like this: College increases the incomes of those who complete it. But the people who go to college are typically already better off. By charging them less than the actual cost of their education, we’re using the tax dollars of poorer non-college-goers to pay for the education of their richer counterparts — whose earning potential will only increase with their shiny new bachelor's degree.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/05/pete-buttigieg-argues-against-free-college-this-is-why-progressives-cant-agree-about-subsidizing-tuition/

[Merlot]

1. So much wrong with this:

But the people who go to college are typically already better off. By charging them less than the actual cost of their education, we’re using the tax dollars of poorer non-college-goers to pay for the education of their richer counterparts — whose earning potential will only increase with their shiny new bachelor's degree.

Personally, I don't think college should be free, but it should be affordable to anyone who wants to go. Prices have gone up so much in the past 20 years. The higher pricetag discourages those from lower economic situations who would like to improve their lives.

How many college graduates are working at starbucks these days? You call that increasing earning potential?

[marylandblue]

7. He does say college costs should be lower, so you are in agreement there.

But I think you should be able to get a good paying job without college.

[Hortensis]

30. So much wrong with the TITLE. We don't HAVE to agree on

the details, certainly not something as complex with as many ways of approaching solutions as funding higher education. What matters is that we all agree on the tremendous value of education, the rights of the people to fulfill themselves through education, and the need to fix this huge national funding problem. And that the Republicans oppose it.

Republicans are actually trying to change us to a nation in which fewer are educated and then only in subjects and to a level that will serve the needs of employers. Forget taking a class in renaissance history because it appeals. If those controlling some red states have their way, in future nothing like that will even be offered at their state colleges. HUGE, existential difference from what all of us believe is right and necessary.

Frankly, compared to the Republicans' and business's corrupt product of requiring college students to go into crippling debt for sometimes decades, affordable college and free college are practically the same thing. I remember when I was young, lived very modestly and had little money to spare, and still paid for a full semester of classes the way I'd write a check for the week's groceries.

We'll get the power to make it happen and work out the details. Tennessee is making some college and university free and some affordable, and state and community college students there are 100% better off than in predatory states.

[OregonBlue]

2. I thought that's why we had campaigns and primaries. We

don't all agree about everything?

[MH1]

3. Community college should be made easily accessible.

By low or free tuition, especially for remedial work to be able to take classes with actual college-level substance.

Doing this would give an opportunity to lower income students with outstanding performance to qualify for scholarships at 4 year schools for the last two years of a bachelor degree.

I don't think 4 year school tuition should generally be free. However some of the best colleges (Princeton, for example) have a policy that if a student earns admission, they should be able to attend even if they can't afford the normal tuition. I don't know the details of Princeton's policy but it sounded good on the surface. Problem is that students from low-income areas generally miss out on the opportunities to get academic preparation needed to qualify for an elite school like that.

[Blue_true]

43. Princeton uses it's large endowment to foot tuition for kids from

families that can't afford to pay.

[jberryhill]

4. Kind of a dumb argument

"I have a hard time getting my head around the idea a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidize a minority who earn more because they did."

Does he realize that the higher income earners pay more taxes, thus "subsidizing" a shitload of stuff used by the lower income earners?

Really kind of a dumb argument which fails to follow its own logic to a conclusion.

[marylandblue]

8. Yes, he does realize that, but he's asking if that's the best use of our money.

People go to college to earn more money. But even if you made college free, poor people would not be able to go because they can't afford not to work. So why don't we spend our money helping people make a good living without college?

[jberryhill]

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.

[marylandblue]

25. Yours is a long but simplistic response to an intentionally short post.

The whole issue is net benefits. The actual cost-benefit ratio of college is going down as costs go up faster than the income gains from going to college. This is true whether the government pays for it or you pay. Meanwhile, as good paying blue collar jobs disappear, the disadvantage of not going to college increases. So we are paying more and more for college education to provide more education to more people while the social benefit of education is decreasing.

And yes, the 18 year old cut off is arbitrary. But that doesn't mean it should automatically go up. Maybe we end at 16 and send everybody to national service for two years? Or offer two of trade school for those not going to college? I'M NOT advocating for these, they are just ideas that could work for some people better than what we have now.

Free college is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. We really need a range of solutions and a detailed discussion that is difficult to do by internet post or sound bite.

So lets not assume somebody is being "simplistic" just because they didn't write a treatise on their entire thought process in five minutes.

[Blue_true]

45. I like your reasoning on this.

I think that you also touched on the key issues with free college. 4 year College campuses are heavily populated by middleclass and above kids. Those kids have parents that push them toward college. If we don't provide suitable paths for kids that don't have the family support for higher education, then we are only going to increase the income gap in the country, and that gap will have a big racial component.

I like the idea of a mandatory 4 years of national service after high school or age 19, whichever criteria is met. Kids get a chance to mature before making important career decisions. Some kids may find that a trade is better for them, while others may conclude that college and professional school is better for them. Regardless of the choice, 23 or 24 year old young people will go off to training that would then be free to them because of their national service. I think it would be win-win, more mature disciplined kids studying for their future and kids studying for a range of occupations that benefit the country down the road.

[Politicub]

37. For as smart as Mayor Pete is...

his argument is patronizing and dismissive. So many people are drowning in college debt.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not closing the door on a path to a fully-funded college education. I'm happy with starting with community colleges and making those tuition free. And then, perhaps public universities would be a public option for people who want it. And, and increase in federal help like Pell Grants.

The private universities can keep doing what they're doing, even though their high costs are unethical.

[Blue_true]

46. One thing that can be done with tuition debt is

the government pays it off for kids that chose certain fields like teaching, nursing, doctors, in exchange for them giving a portion of their career years to public service. For example, doctors and nurses would serve in community clinics or poorly staffed hospitals. They still get salaries applicable to their field along with tuition debt relief. They can choose to stay in those jobs or move on once they have meet their time obligation.

[LuvNewcastle]

41. That's what I thought.

I doubt the lower income people are doing much subsidizing, anyway. He's a smart guy, but he hasn't thought this through. Sounds rather ignorant to me.

[mr_lebowski]

5. Every economically-based argument in the world always has two sides ...

The one thing that's indisputable is ... very, very little, when it comes to good/services exchanges between non-family members or good friends ... is 'free'.

So I do understand objecting to the 'Free College' terminology. I think it's dumb, politically, frankly.

THAT BEING SAID, there's a fairly simple argument to be made by any progressive, Mayor Pete included, that lowering the tuitions for ALL higher education, including trade schools and things of that nature, and building more colleges, thus allowing a larger % of young people to attend ... paid for by raising taxes on the top 1%, and by MASSIVELY reducing the military budget (rather than 'making poorer people pay for it', as he's implying as the inevitable result) ... is a viable and reasonably fair option.

The top 1% will end up benefiting as well from this policy in the form of a larger pool of more qualified workers to aid them in their quest for infinite riches, houses, yachts, etc.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. The concept of free college is great and hard to object to, but

it's too simple. For years I worked as an adjunct faculty member at a state university whose students were mostly working adults, including a lot of immigrants. Almost all of them were trying to go to college while working full-time and/or taking care of families. Their biggest obstacle to staying in school wasn't tuition - the tuition was relatively low and many students had financial aid, like the GI Bill, scholarships or grants - but the burden of juggling the rest of their lives with their course work. The main reason students dropped out wasn't the tuition but the demands of their jobs and families. If their employer changed their work schedules or a child got sick the student couldn't come to class. There are on-line classes that somewhat assuage schedule difficulties but even they don't solve these problems completely, since the students also have to do off-line work. Until there's a realistic way to help these students - who need help a lot more than the teenaged children of middle-class families - just paying their tuition isn't going to ensure they can complete their college educations. Maybe there should be funding for child care on campus, or grants in cooperation with employers that allow the students to take a leave of absence from their jobs. More and different solutions are needed besides paid tuition.

[greymattermom]

27. One solution is to have shorter courses, maybe 6 or 10 weeks.

So students earn credit if they can attend for a shorter time period. Then they wouldn't have to attend for a whole semester to earn something.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. But they'd still have to take enough cumulative classes to have learned something

qualifying them for a degree, and the longer a student strings out their education the more likely they are either to have forgotten their first courses or never to graduate at all. Most colleges require students to finish within seven years, and there's a good reason for that.

[dubyadiprecession]

9. Let's focus on the dire priority of healthcare first.

The ACA needs more attention, we can’t afford to let republicans tear it down. Americas health is more important, actual living people need this and can’t live without it.

Tuition free college is ideal, but it should be a fight for a later day.

[MineralMan]

10. Back when I went to college (1960s), there was no tuition at the state colleges

in California. You still had to pay for room and board, books, and other expenses, and there was a modest fee each semester, but very modest.

The taxpayers of the state paid the rest. At the time, California has a progressive income tax, so wealthy people paid a higher percentage in taxes on their income. At the time, getting into a state college pretty much required a 3.0 GPA, as well. Room and board in my Freshman year was $600 total for each 3-month quarter. Books were expensive, but I bought used texts or used the textbooks in the library. My parents covered part of the expenses and my summer job covered the rest.

Not everyone went to college. I had been accepted at Cal Tech, but my parents simply said they couldn't afford that. No problem. The state college was good, too.

A lot of students went for two years at the local community college, or "Junior College" as it was called at the time. Then, if they did OK there, they'd transfer to one of the state schools. Kids with parents who were more affluent went to one of the many private colleges and universities. The University of California was another option. It cost somewhat more, and admission standards were higher. I chose a state college that was just a three-hour drive from my home town.

College was tuition free then, at least at state colleges in California. Getting that education, of course, was not completely free, and not everyone went to college.

My point here is that college was never free. In some places, like California, though, the state college system was primarily funded from income tax revenues in a progressive taxation system. The rich paid more. The poor paid nothing. I stayed in a dorm. Other students found other places to stay. Some students lived at home and went to a state college nearby. Many worked full-time jobs to pay for school, and you could do that in that economy. There was a way to go to college if you had a 3.0 GPA and some ingenuity. For those who didn't have the academic qualifications, Junior College for two years was how you could increase your GPA and gain admission.

Was the system fair? I don't know. It was what it was. That system no longer exists, though. More's the pity, I think.

[Voltaire2]

11. So in summary it costs a lot so only people

who can afford to give their kids the benefit of a college education use it, so we shouldn’t make it available to everyone because then wtf mumble yadda yadda.

[marylandblue]

14. Not everyone is cut out for college, but you can't get a well-paying job without it.

So the whole college thing just reinforces the inequities. It used to be you could get a good job, without college. If we made blue-collar and service industry jobs pay better, fewer people would need or want to go to college, but more lives would be improved.

[Voltaire2]

17. But oddly enough filthy rich bastards

are committing felonious fraud and spending hundreds of thousand to get their unqualified brats into college.

So again, putting unqualified kids through college is only for the rich, and we shouldn’t change that.

[marylandblue]

35. No, we shouldn't allow people to commit felonious fraud, and

as a matter of fact, we don't.

And it isn't even really just about free tuition. Why should ANYBODY be encouraged to pay the opportunity cost of not working to study subjects they hate when they'd really rather be a barista?

[Voltaire2]

36. How about we let them figure that out without

putting them under a mountain of debt.

[marylandblue]

38. I don't disagree. But any solution has social costs as well as benefits.

And we should be clear on what those are before we implement it.

[tymorial]

12. As a concept: free college its fine. Practically speaking, what does that actually mean?

Does free college degree mean all programs or only those that generate sufficient revenue for the institution? Will state universities slash departments with fewer matriculating students or divert funding for improvements to those departments? For many students who wish to study traditional liberal and performing art subjects, state school is their only avenue due to cost. I've known some absolutely amazing and talented individuals who came from poor backgrounds and their only opportunity was a state college. Some were talented enough to secure acceptance at larger private institutions (often with some scholarship) but that was only after proving their worth and value. Many others simply just wanted to study music, art, theatre, or literature etc accepting that they would never find positions within those fields post grad. Some became teachers but others (like myself) went in different directions. We had no choice.

This was 20 years ago and almost across the country many states have reduced their funding even more. All of this has occurred while tuition rises. Many facilities receive more funding from the federal government than they do their own state. What is common today however is students are paying more for their education than is contributed by the state. In truth one of the reasons why state schools should be less expensive is because local taxes subsidize the cost. This is no longer the case in many areas around the country.

So if we make education free, what does that mean? I know more than a few people who rage at college kids studying "useless degrees." This is an argument that is not political, I've heard it from both sides. Back when I was a trauma nurse I had a coworker who was a "lever puller" as we called it back then. He said he would pay for his kids to go to college but only if they studied something that guaranteed him a job. I reminded him that I had a music degree first and it was a few years before I decided to go back to school. It didn't shake him. It doesn't matter that I would never trade those years for anything. They may not have contributed to society or to the loans that I had to take out but they were a big part of my life. Some of my favorite times in my life.

I fear for a model where private schools are the only locations where one can study these subjects and as such studying art, music, theatre and literature would be afforded to only those with privilege and wealth sufficient to afford those subjects. Quite frankly that's already happening in some places already.

[jberryhill]

24. Would high school be okay at 11 grades? What about 13?

How about 16 grades?

[tymorial]

31. That makes no sense what so ever. Nt

[jberryhill]

33. What makes it okay to fund education for 12 years, but not 16?

Where we draw the line on "public education" is entirely arbitrary.

[tymorial]

34. Oh, I understand now. Rather than debate my argument you resort to strawman

Yes, I know. It's much easier. Too bad, I have no interest in playing this game. eom.

[dogman]

13. This is the 21st century.

In the 20th century we did K-12. It is time to adapt to higher standards that will make people more employable and raise their asset level. The 12+ curriculum is already available at many community colleges and trade schools. It is time to expand this opportunity to all. In line with his argument, should we be paying for high school education on the backs of drop outs? As a society we need to decide what future we want. Again, this is the 21st Century.

[marylandblue]

16. Even in the 21st century, we can't all work in STEM or management.

But we still need plumbers and carpenters.

[dogman]

19. And in today's labor market they need training.

As a Union Electrician, I received certification from my local community college upon completion of my apprenticeship. That was 40 years ago. My plumber and carpenter friends had similar programs. Some won't require anything if that is there career choice. Opportunity is the key.

[marylandblue]

20. I agree. We need more of that.

When I was young, I worked in a non-union warehouse for half the pay of a union shop with no benefits. But I couldn't get a job in the union shop.

[dogman]

23. That's why Bernie wants to make Unionization easier.

If you and your fellow workers wanted union wages and benefits, you should have been afforded the right to unionize simply through a card check.

[Voltaire2]

18. Not everyone is cut out for kindergarten

[dogman]

22. Nope, they want you to be able to tie your shoes first.

[jberryhill]

26. Seriously?

I wouldn't have made the cut.

[greymattermom]

28. My grandsons had homework in kindergarten.

Like reading and simple math.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. It should be free or significantly subsidized for those whose families cannot afford it

It gives those who have the motivation and talent an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

In general it should be more affordable. I'm fine with paying higher taxes to drive down the cost at the state universities.

[UniteFightBack]

40. I agree with subsidizing. People should pay something because it is a thing of value. If you

pay your own money too you tend to value it more. But on a sliding scale of course and really affordable.

[SWBTATTReg]

32. Well, I worked at a major corporation and we (in my area) hired IT professionals out of ...

school for the most part. You would be amazed at how much remedial training we still had to provide these kids coming out of college. Too many in my viewpoint, especially when you have to teach them how to write, read, etc., all of the basics. And this was at a major corporation no less.

It wasn't everyone but it was enough to make you wonder if these kids with the degrees really knew what the values of these degrees are? I have seen too many times where the kids seem to think that college is all about spring break, going to Florida and partying, etc. We have all seen the parents bribing college admissions officials to get their kids into school (who didn't have the grades or scores to get in otherwise) and the kids themselves admit that they don't study and to them, it's all fun and games.

For kids like this, I wouldn't pay a single dime for their college. Not one dime. They don't respect the value of a higher education and seem to think it's party time. If you have to pay for school, and/or had scholarships (earned via high grades in high school, etc.), then you know the value of these degrees, and thus, more likely to put lots more effort into it. Now, this isn't all kids, but the kids who do care, are already out there in the marketplace, working to save up the money for school, and doing everything they can in order to go. They are not going to Florida to party either.

[jaceaf]

39. Missing the education angle

We would be a better society with better education. Republicans want an ignorant country.

Nevermind the false economics that a college education somehow makes you rich.

[Voltaire2]

48. It doesn't make you rich, it does get you in the door.

[Blue_true]

42. I see his point.

A society needs skillsets of all types. We need plumbers, electricians, toilet and floor cleaners, doctors, nurses, lawyers, ect. College is not for everyone, so any plan must be designed to cover as many people as possible. A college degreed person SHOULD pay more in taxes over a working career, but with tax payment avoidance by some, there is no certainty that society will get it's free tuition investment back, with extra dividends. So, if society pays for one kid's college, what do we give the kid that takes a job at McDonalds after high school because he or she was not into college? In theory the second kid ends up helping to pay the way for the first kid. Do we give the first kid $30,000 dollars tax free?

Any assistance system is going to have some unfairness associated with it. How do we minimize that unfairness? One method would be to offer life-long educational assistance that can be utilized once, kid 1 may use that assistance for college right out of high school. Kid 2 May wait until 30 to think about a better future for himself or herself. The issue that I have with free tuition is that it ends up favoring people that already have an advantage, kids whose family recognize the value of a good college degree, it does nothing for kids that don't have that support. Free college most likely will increase racial income disparities also.

[ecstatic]

44. A problem easily resolved by making community college free

Will the rich and well off attend community colleges?

[WeekiWater]

47. He is looking at the bigger picture.

Voters are more receptive to simplicity in arguments. Going around blurting out the BS free college line will always resonate more than discussing the encompassing impacts of going with or without continuing education.

[Mr Tibbs]

49. Free college tuition at public colleges means

Anyone who goes to those college's don't pay tuition regardless of income. Not sure what his issue is.

"Can't have it because someone from a wealthy family might go too" is a weak argument.