Dirty Jobs Mike Rowe on the high cost of college education

Let me preface this with I think Mike Rowe is a great entertainer and very likable. I know this more than from watching Dirty Jobs. My brother in law worked with him at QVC. He says Mike was the only down to earth on air personality at that shop. He was great with the crew and was cool when they messed with him.

It is easy to agree with what Mike states because a lot of what he states are general facts and knowledge. Yes, we have high unemployment. Yes, college grads are graduating with mountains of debt. Yes, college education inflation is higher than any other product. Yes, manual labor / blue collar jobs are generally frowned upon by the current school system. Yes, political ads demonize the competition.

Essentially, he provides a nice highlight to a domestic problem, but offers no real solution to the audience. You walk away feeling like, "Yeah! Education has it wrong! This needs to be fixed!!!" But how...

There are multiple facets, but at the end of the day to really fix this issue, quality education needs to be decoupled from the direct expense of loans or parental cash outlays. This means that students should be admitted based upon academic prowess, not financial backing, how much your family will endow to the university, or if you can dunk a ball. This would ultimately increase the amount of education each person receives and a more educated population earns more and thus pays more taxes. It is in our best interest as a nation to ensure that each successive generation becomes smarter and thus can continue to compete against the rest of the world. By denying access to education or charging more than what a generation can reasonably afford, we are actually destroy our long term competitiveness and reduce the overall standard of living for future generations.

Secondarily, if Mike really wants for blue collar jobs to be on an upswing, we need a formal way of communicating that skill to a new generation. The trades generally lend themselves to apprenticeships and don't work well in the university system. Those students that do not have the aptitude / ability / interest to go to get into a university, need to have the access to trade schools that can give them skills beyond flipping burgers. At the end of the day, that is noble and proper support the trades, but we need to recognize it is an uphill battle. The reason why those trades are dying is because we collectively made the decision to offshore it to Mexico, China and India for 10% of the cost here in the States. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what we did.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled conservative, selfish, narrow minded, and short sighted programming...

If oil companies were increasing their prices as much as higher ed there would be congressional investigations, firings, lawsuits and even criminal probes. Instead we make it easier and easier for students to get money they will never have the ability to pay back.

We have a great system in Germany where out of highschool you can chose the quickest path into skilled workforce in three years being an apprentice-employee of a company with a basic salary of about a thousand Dollars. But you only go 3.5 days to work, the other time you are in a public school.

I have my college degree but am very happy to have gone that path before.

pitchforks on campus wrote:

If oil companies were increasing their prices as much as higher ed there would be congressional investigations, firings, lawsuits and even criminal probes. Instead we make it easier and easier for students to get money they will never have the ability to pay back.

Oil companies would increase their prices at that rate if: We deferred paying for gas through loans and didn't have to start paying on those loans until we stopped driving.

That being said, the vast majority of college loans will be paid back. The larger question is... at what cost?

1. There is the initial pricetag of the education.

2. Then there is the interest on the loan.

3. There are the ethereal costs because this forces many grads to postpone otherwise normal economic purchases further down the road (house, car, offspring).

4. There is the overall economic cost of many students foregoing advanced education due to the high barrier of cost. This means they do not provide their full value to GDP.

Our current system only exacerbates our class differences down to those with means and those without. Everyone benefits if the aggregate is more educated because a more educated society has a higher GDP, pays more taxes (funds more schools), has lower crime rates, and is more politically stable.

We should absolutely adopt the German apprenticeship system, but that is not a cure-all, and Germany's economy is not exactly roaring along. The American economy has grown well ahead of other developed nations since the Recession. College grads earn even more relative to hs grads than ever before, and more job categories are filled by college grads today than in the past. At the same time, there is no reason not to have more skills education starting in 7th grade or even sooner in a range of areas, or to make college much cheaper and less dependent on loans. It won't get cheaper by cutting teacher pay--that's been done, but by cutting down on administrative, building, athletic, and student services>>focus on education and let the other stuff be done on the club level as in Europe. Also, legislation needs to rein in some of the major costs of education that stem from professional journals. It seems like a joke, but a few corporations have gobbled up the rights to thousands of journals each and charge enormous fees in the millions for the rights year by year to see the journals--which is absolutely essential for the research that is the long-term engine of this economy. They function monopolistically, they raise fees significantly every year without any competition, and hence, there is a need for gov't to intervene.

cprior wrote:

We have a great system in Germany where out of highschool you can chose the quickest path into skilled workforce in three years being an apprentice-employee of a company with a basic salary of about a thousand Dollars. But you only go 3.5 days to work, the other time you are in a public school.

I have my college degree but am very happy to have gone that path before.

Possible Solution wrote:

4. There is the overall economic cost of many students foregoing advanced education due to the high barrier of cost. This means they do not provide their full value to GDP.

Also, business formation is an issue. If you graduate with significant debt, you just want a stable income that will allow you to make payments. You might have a great idea for a business or product, but you're not going to take on the risk of running your own business while you have debt hanging over your head. Who knows what kinds of entrepreneurial and innovative ideas have failed to see the light of day because their creator had to choose a stable income in industry over taking a shot at bringing their idea along.

to illustrate my point, German GDP in 2009 (toward the beginning of the recession) rose 14% in 5 years to 2014, whereas American GDP rose 21% (=50% more).

The smartest and most productive people I know have a mere high school education or just didn't bother to finish college just to get a piece of paper that claimed they were smart.These people provide jobs for others and simply get stuff done while 'folks' like you talk about it.

jjjjjj wrote:

to illustrate my point, German GDP in 2009 (toward the beginning of the recession) rose 14% in 5 years to 2014, whereas American GDP rose 21% (=50% more).

You have to break down the GDP numbers and the source of GDP. America has vast oil reserves of which Germany has none. the US greatly expanded production of unconventional oil from 2009 to 2014 which was the predominate source of GDP growth. In actuality, when you compare German to US productivity, Germany wins over the same time period. Quite remarkable considering the US advantage of natural resources.

Actual Solution wrote:

The smartest and most productive people I know have a mere high school education or just didn't bother to finish college just to get a piece of paper that claimed they were smart.

These people provide jobs for others and simply get stuff done while 'folks' like you talk about it.

While you like everyone else "knows a guy" that bootstrapped his success, they are the exception, not the rule.

The real binding factor to financial entrepreneurial success is actually access to capital.

However, feel free to perpetuate the myth that successful business owners got there through that special spark and not because they had a safety net that protected them from failure. It is that same myth that maintains our oligopoly system of control over the masses.

You got the major problem wrong. That problem is how governmens and universities operate budgets. There is no incentive to be efficient. Being efficient, by spending less and saving money, leads to reduced budgets in future years. Your department does not need the saved money after all. So, to avoid hurting themselves in later years, departments make sure to spend every single dollar, and slightly more. Those who need more money--the inefficient--, get more money. Much of the money spent at the end of budget cycles goes towards useless expenses; unnecessary materials, mostly, that never get used and end up surplussed at huge discounts.

Liberals still don't get it.

Your policies *created* the problem.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition

www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr733.html

65% pass through effect on tuition.

$26k of your $40k in student debt is thanks to the market distorting effects of asinine liberal policy.

If you do not understand economics and the theory of supply and demand, you should not be in office and/or suggesting policy.

krispy kremlin_ wrote:

Liberals still don't get it.

Your policies *created* the problem.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr733.html

65% pass through effect on tuition.

$26k of your $40k in student debt is thanks to the market distorting effects of asinine liberal policy.

If you do not understand economics and the theory of supply and demand, you should not be in office and/or suggesting policy.

Actually, it is the true liberals that want to change the funding source to taxpayer funded / oversight like in Europe.

It is the conservatives like you who love our current system since they get to initiate the loans and profit with such predatory lending conditions. The expansion of tuition is a side effect of ensuring that our knowledge transfer system is handled in a profiteering fashion. That makes total sense since the conservatives prefer an uneducated population because they are more easily controlled through propaganda.

Solutions . . . wrote:

You got the major problem wrong. That problem is how governmens and universities operate budgets. There is no incentive to be efficient. Being efficient, by spending less and saving money, leads to reduced budgets in future years. Your department does not need the saved money after all. So, to avoid hurting themselves in later years, departments make sure to spend every single dollar, and slightly more. Those who need more money--the inefficient--, get more money. Much of the money spent at the end of budget cycles goes towards useless expenses; unnecessary materials, mostly, that never get used and end up surplussed at huge discounts.

That's true.

But it's also true for many big businesses as well.

Divisions are given a budget and are often compelled to spend the full amount so their budget doesn't get shrunk the next year.

If a corporation sees some savings on a division they will just expect to see that savings again.

There's a use it lose mentality in the corporate world, it's not just government.

Possible Solution wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

to illustrate my point, German GDP in 2009 (toward the beginning of the recession) rose 14% in 5 years to 2014, whereas American GDP rose 21% (=50% more).

You have to break down the GDP numbers and the source of GDP. America has vast oil reserves of which Germany has none. the US greatly expanded production of unconventional oil from 2009 to 2014 which was the predominate source of GDP growth. In actuality, when you compare German to US productivity, Germany wins over the same time period. Quite remarkable considering the US advantage of natural resources.

If you discount the US gain from natural resources, they're less than Germany, which is remarkable given the US advantage of natural resources? Huh?

Which will probably make the system worse, less efficient, and further distort incentives and decisions.

Over 95% of student loans are directly from the government - no banks to scapegoat this time.

Not everyone should go to college. Charging some level of tuition is a great mechanism to determine who should and shouldnt go. There will always be some level of charity/scholarship for the deserving and needing.

The Department of Education is the greatest predatory lender in the history of this country - think about it, thousands of dollars of loans to 17-18 year old kids that they have no idea if they will be able to pay it off or even graduate, all while chasing a dream perpetuated by the government lender.

Liberals - look yourselves in the mirror.

vbn wrote:

If you discount the US gain from natural resources, they're less than Germany, which is remarkable given the US advantage of natural resources? Huh?

No doubt you've heard the term "skinny fat"...

...what we have here is brilliant stupidity.

Possible Solution wrote:

That being said, the vast majority of college loans will be paid back.

Wages aren't keeping up.

There is a new class of sharecropper out there paying their non-dischargeable loans until the day they die.

When college education funding is the ponzi-scheme the banks are working at the moment. A mirror check is all you need to take on enormous debt.

This thread is getting good.

Actual Solution wrote:

vbn wrote:

If you discount the US gain from natural resources, they're less than Germany, which is remarkable given the US advantage of natural resources? Huh?

No doubt you've heard the term "skinny fat"...

...what we have here is brilliant stupidity.