We get to pay for student loans. Great.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Walmart is bragging they will pay 100k a year for drivers.that’s crazy.

I’m in a similar field. Electrician, moved into electronics. But we’re in the same boat. I started at 14, went full time the day after graduation. Back then the average age of a crew of ten was maybe 22? Half of us couldn’t get in a bar. But the Forman would have us meet at the strip club for the Friday safety meeting and tell the door guy we were all over 21. Man that was a side step.

Anyway, the average crew age these days is about 50. I read an industry article saying we are 2 million electricians short. Today. It’s going to get worse. And these idiots are pushing for all electric cars? Who the fuck is going to service that shit? Nobody is being trained, very few in the apprentice program. There’s nobody to take over.

My 91 year old father was a bricklayer. His union still sends out news bulletins and things like that to their retired members. They are offering their retirees $500.00 if they can find young people to join the trade. Yes, it's tough work. I tried it myself one summer, but my father made a pretty damn good living and retirement. Today it pays a little over $50.00 an hour with benefits included, you are laid off all winter (you can't lay brick below freezing) so you collect umployment and there is plenty of overtime due to the bricklayer shortage. The union provides all the training for free and will get you jobs as an apprentice. Can't find anybody that can pass a drug screen to take the jobs.

I think we have a real problem with this drug screening thing. Sure, drug screen people if they are intoxicated on the job, but what people do in their own home is their business. If our politicians weren't so in bed with the insurance companies, they'd make a law against drug screening and it could very well solve our employee shortage problems.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You're free to believe what you wish. I'm certainly not saying that academia isn't left on the political spectrum as a whole, but the ones who are running the day to day administrative operations of a major university aren't really leftists.

you're still operating on the same "assumption"
so then lets both blame the right wing administrators for these schools saddling students with debt their educations cannot dig them out of and demand the schools pay the debt which has been my point all along [except where my responses were required to answer certain posts that ignored the debt forgiveness debacle and who should forgive it] has veered off point in , arguing who is administering the debt matters not in the case of debt forgiveness.

They're chasing money, trying to find new revenue streams, and responsible for budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. That requires a capitalist skillset, not a socialist one.

Not sure why you keep on with this line of reasoning but if the above is correct then that only means the schools are doing it wrong for a reason.

 

[Red Front]

I think you have it backwards.
Communism is our past, as all primitive tribes always are communist inherently.
They could not survive or flourish if capitalist.
But it is not clear communism works in really large societies, where people are all strangers to each other.

In Marxism, there are two types of communism. Primitive communism and high communism. As you said, when we were hunter-gatherers, we organized our labor in primitive conditions, materially and otherwise, hence we identify that form of communism as "primitive":

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order based on the idea of common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the state.[10][11][12]

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Communism (whether primitive or high/advanced) according to Marx is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Before large-scale agriculture, which led to private land ownership and slavery, feudalism..etc, there was no need for a state apparatus. The state was created to protect the private property (land, slave ownership, livestock) of the ruling class (the socioeconomic class of owners). The objective of Marxists is high communism, which is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money, and that can only occur in the modern age, with very advanced technology. Socialism is the process that leads to HIGH-COMMUNISM:

​

Hightech communism is the result of a process of socializing, democratizing, and eventually completely personalizing production. That process is commonly known as "socialism". When capitalists compete for greater market share, they develop new and more efficient means of production in order to reduce overhead, increase profits and dominate markets. This competition between capitalists results in an explosion of technology, that facilitates more efficient and effective systems of production leading to a significant reduction in human labor. However, this process of productive evolution eventually leads to the necessary adoption of a mode of production that discards the pursuit of profits and the use of markets. Why?

If capitalists (the ruling, wealthy class/ownership class) are the pillars of society, then the working class (those who must sell their labor/lives to the capitalists for a wage) are the foundation upon which the pillars rest (wage labor = the paying consumer/market). When technology significantly reduces the need for wage labor, it creates mass unemployment, consumer debt, and a catastrophic, life or death crisis:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

​

Some capitalists will offer consumers a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income or just a Universal Income (not basic, but a full $3000 monthly income), essentially in order to place capitalism on life support. The government plutocracies of the world, especially in the West, are being told by their wealthiest ruling classes (the 1%), that the only way to avoid mass unemployment and the pitchforks coming out (bloodshed), is if these governments hand everyone a "free check"/"free money", in order to conjure up an artificial market, with paying consumers. But that's not the actual, long-term solution. That's a mere bandaid that will lead to a worse crisis in the future, because that will only create a modern, techno-feudal society, with the current wealthy ruling class, owning all of the technology and everything else, while the former working-class will be consigned to serfdom if not the compost heap.

Socialism is the process of converting capitalist, privately owned, profit-oriented production, into a publicly owned, non-profit, socialized, democratized, and eventually, completely personalized system of production, also known as "High Communism"/High-Tech Communism. So we begin with collective socialist ownership of the means of production where the working class collectively as a community, takes the reins of power and ownership over the capitalist state and all of the machinery and facilities of production from the capitalists, to meet the needs of 95% of the population (the working-class) and everyone else, including the former capitalists (meeting their consumption needs as well).

Automated Systems, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Autonomous Machines, Self-Driving Vehicles, Supercomputers, Nanotech, and more...

We own all of the above technology collectively and we organize production to meet our needs, eventually reaching the material conditions of high communism when we no longer need anyone else to produce what we consume. When the individual consumer has complete personal autonomy over the production of goods that they consume, the state becomes superfluous and all relations between adult human beings become 100% consensual, without coercion. Atomic precision manufacturing machines will eventually provide this level of freedom to the individual consumer.

​

 

[multivita-man]

you're still operating on the same "assumption"
so then lets both blame the right for these schools saddling students with debt their educations cannot dig them out of and demand the schools pay the debt which is my point all along, arguing who is administering the debt matters not in the case of debt forgiveness.

Not sure why you keep on with this line of reasoning but if the above is correct then that only means the schools are doing it wrong for a reason.

Just my own personal experience, but I don't know many MFA flower children who can run a billion dollar enterprise. As I said, that takes a special skillset.

But we have different ideas about what conservatism is. My brand of conservatism is the one I thought Republicans believed in back in the 1990s, back when upstarts like John Boehner and John Kasich were part of a Republican Revolution. That Republican party convinced me to switch from the part of Bill Clinton to the party of something new and interesting, or so I thought. That was an optimistic conservatism. The conservatism of today is angry, dark, nativist.

 

[Dekster]

The polls show that a majority support the $10,000 loan forgiveness but do not support total forgiveness.

I have not seen any new polling since it was announced, but that was the case beforehand.

 

[Red Front]

CommunistFront wrtites:
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills or maybe just start actually reading what I write and stop ignoring it.

Response:
When you write something which addresses the issue put to you, I will.
So far all you've done is make fantastic claims about the glories of socialism, all while failing to demonstrate how forcing people to work at gunpoint is better than let them suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.
Your current post, where you again extol the virtues of socialism, but do not even attempt make the demonstration asked of you, is no different.

CommunistFront writes:
It's not necessarily at "gunpoint", because there is no set or established way of dealing with that situation

Response:
You said the able bodies that refuse to work might be sent to prison; to that you have now added "work camps", which differ from prisons only in that they are usually outside.
That's "at gunpoint".
So, again:
Demonstrate how forcing people to work at gunpoint is better than letting them suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.
Sack up, Comrade -- address the issue put to you.

Abandoning people in their own self-destructive stupidity doesn't just hurt them but all of society as well.

So-called "gunpoint" or tough love is better for everyone and more life-affirming. It saves lives.
​

 

[Red Front]

So pretty much whatever will be the cost. And if that whatever cost of your four year degree in whatever doesn’t pan out we have a government job for you that pays you know whatever. Cradle to grave tax payer living.

Umm, where will the tax payers come from?

If you do a cost-benefit analysis for providing education to everyone in society, tuition-free, the benefits greatly outweigh the expense. It's an investment with a very high rate of return or ROI.

As far as employment guarantees in the public sector. Everyone that can work, will work because they have a job either in the private sector or in the public. If for whatever reason, you don't have a work history or you have some serious time gaps in your past employment history because you've been a stay-at-home mom for the last 19 years, don't worry, you have a guaranteed job with the government. The public sector will hire you, train you and provide you with experience, then after three or five years of working for the public sector, you can move to the private, if that's what you want.

Everyone that works, whether in the public or private sector, earns a wage and pays taxes, not to speak of the fact that they also buy products and services. Their salaries are paid by the federal budget or/and by the profits of publicly owned industries or/and by state and local taxes. Full employment doesn't necessarily imply higher taxes, but it definitely does create more paying consumers and increases production, hence allowing the federal government to safely expand its budget without the danger of inflation. The budgetary constraints of the federal government are defined by our national GDP or production capacity. Employment is a very important element of that GDP. If the government puts people to work, it raises our GDP, creating a much more robust economy. Our infrastructure is falling apart, we need millions of Americans to rebuild America, truly making it great again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you do a cost-benefit analysis for providing education to everyone in society, tuition-free, the benefits greatly outweigh the expense. It's an investment with a very high rate of return or ROI.

As far as employment guarantees in the public sector. Everyone that can work, will work because they have a job either in the private sector or in the public. If for whatever reason, you don't have a work history or you have some serious time gaps in your past employment history because you've been a stay-at-home mom for the last 19 years, don't worry, you have a guaranteed job with the government. The public sector will hire you, train you and provide you with experience, then after three or five years of working for the public sector, you can move to the private, if that's what you want.

Everyone that works, whether in the public or private sector, earns a wage and pays taxes, not to speak of the fact that they also buy products and services. Their salaries are paid by the federal budget or/and by the profits of publicly owned industries or/and by state and local taxes. Full employment doesn't necessarily imply higher taxes, but it definitely does create more paying consumers and increases production, hence allowing the federal government to safely expand its budget without the danger of inflation. The budgetary constraints of the federal government are defined by our national GDP or production capacity. Employment is a very important element of that GDP. If the government puts people to work, raise our GDP, creating a much more robust economy. Our infrastructure is falling apart, we need millions of Americans to rebuild America, truly making it great again.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis for providing education to everyone in society, tuition-free, the benefits greatly outweigh the expense.

We already do that thru high school.

It's an investment with a very high rate of return or ROI.

Meh.

Everyone that works, whether in the public or private sector, earns a wage and pays taxes, not to speak of the fact that they also buy products and services.

Which products and services do they produce?

Full employment doesn't necessarily imply higher taxes,

Where is the money coming from to pay all these new government workers?

Employment is a very important element of that GDP.

GDP......Gross Domestic Product

 

[Red Front]

If you do a cost-benefit analysis for providing education to everyone in society, tuition-free, the benefits greatly outweigh the expense.

We already do that thru high school.

It's an investment with a very high rate of return or ROI.

Meh.

Everyone that works, whether in the public or private sector, earns a wage and pays taxes, not to speak of the fact that they also buy products and services.

Which products and services do they produce?

Full employment doesn't necessarily imply higher taxes,

Where is the money coming from to pay all these new government workers?

Employment is a very important element of that GDP.

GDP......Gross Domestic Product

Let me repeat this again. The federal budget, the profits from publicly owned/nationalized industries, will be the primary source of funding for this federal program. State and local taxes or state-owned industries can also contribute, and may not require an increase in taxes but rather a reallocation of funds. It's often the case that tax dollars aren't being used wisely, for example, the inflated prices that the government pays the private sector for goods and services. When I was in the army in the early 90s, working as a unit supply specialist, I had a list of the prices the government was paying for each item in my supply room. A basic screwdriver that anyone could buy at Home Depot or Walmart for $8.00 or even less, was being sold to the army for $89. So, our government has plenty of money, it's just not being spent wisely.

Providing a college education or vocational job training to every American could probably cost less than what the government is currently spending on education.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me repeat this again. The federal budget, the profits from publicly owned/nationalized industries, will be the primary source of funding for this federal program. State and local taxes or state-owned industries can also contribute, and may not require an increase in taxes but rather a reallocation of funds. It's often the case that tax dollars aren't being used wisely, for example, the inflated prices that the government pays the private sector for goods and services. When I was in the army in the early 90s, working as a unit supply specialist, I had a list of the prices the government was paying for each item in my supply room. A basic screwdriver that anyone could buy at Home Depot or Walmart for $8.00 or even less, was being sold to the army for $89. So, our government has plenty of money, it's just not being spent wisely.

Providing a college education or vocational job training to every American could probably cost less than what we currently spend for education.

The federal budget, the profits from publicly owned/nationalized industries, will be the primary source of funding for this federal program.

Is the entire economy going to be state owned?

Providing a college education or vocational job training to every American could probably cost less than what we currently spend for education.

So we'll save money when more people go?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In other words, a communist government enslaves the people. Yes. That is just how it works, in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. China abandoned financial communism and kept social communism. The people really are slaves of the government.

 

[Red Front]

The federal budget, the profits from publicly owned/nationalized industries, will be the primary source of funding for this federal program.

Is the entire economy going to be state owned?

Providing a college education or vocational job training to every American could probably cost less than what we currently spend for education.

So we'll save money when more people go?

No, that's not required. Only the major centers of economic power, the so-called "commanding heights of the economy", as Marx termed it, would be nationalized. Every industry vital to our nation's infrastructure, like the oil and gas/energy sector, nuclear plants, mining/mines, all local utilities (the individual states and municipalities should own them), banks/finance, healthcare (a private medical sector would exist alongside the public healthcare system), big pharma (becomes "Pharma USA" with reasonable prices), public transit (cross country and intrastate highspeed rails/bullet trains), telecom, the military-industrial complex (eliminate war profiteering), and a couple of other industries, would be publicly owned.

The revenue from all of the above major, heavy industries would go towards developing and maintaining our national infrastructure and paying salaries. The federal government, unlike the state and local governments, is the exclusive issuer of the USD, so it will always have money but it nevertheless, has to remain within its GDP limits. The budgetary constraints of the US federal government are defined by our national production capacity or GDP. So it's always good to use the profits from publicly owned industries when possible or even taxes, BUT it can nonetheless, always, provided it remains within its limits, simply fund everything with its yearly federal budget, which could be double what it is now based on our current GDP. I prefer to be conservative with funding whenever I can when I'm operating (planning, theorizing) within a capitalist, market system/framework, so that's why I offer alternatives to simply relying on the federal budget.

 

[Rigby5]

If you do a cost-benefit analysis for providing education to everyone in society, tuition-free, the benefits greatly outweigh the expense.

We already do that thru high school.

Obviously high school no longer is enough.
High school does not teach anything about computers, automation, 3D printing, networking, or any of the technology people need these days, like how to use spreadsheets, make presentation, web pages, databases operations, etc.

 

[Orangecat]

Education should be a human right, hence tuition free.

A service, provided by another via force, isn't a human right, it's slavery.

 

[Rigby5]

Providing a college education or vocational job training to every American could probably cost less than what we currently spend for education.

So we'll save money when more people go?

No, the idea is that just like with health care, we let the costs run away.
Costs for health care and education are about 4 times higher than they should be according to just inflation.
So it is corruption instead.
And if we get more involved, by subsidizing, then we also can regulate out the corruption that is over charging.
That is what other countries are doing, so they have better healthcare and more college grads.
That is why we are starting to lose.

 

[Rigby5]

A service, provided by another via force, isn't a human right, it's slavery.

Tuition subsidies are temporary.
Once the person graduates, their much higher salary pays much higher taxes, so pays the subsidy back.

 

[Red Front]

In other words, a communist government enslaves the people. Yes. That is just how it works, in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. China abandoned financial communism and kept social communism. The people really are slaves of the government.

A socialist democratic government would free us from the capitalist-run plutocracy we live under today.

 

[Orangecat]

but I'm not an old sour grapes type who begrudges others getting some help.

With OPM. How noble of you.

 

[Orangecat]

You don't say

He doesn't think.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obviously high school no longer is enough.
High school does not teach anything about computers, automation, 3D printing, networking, or any of the technology people need these days, like how to use spreadsheets, make presentation, web pages, databases operations, etc.

They don't have time for that stuff. They are more focused on teaching kids white guilt and that if you are a guy, you can become a gal by wearing their clothing and putting on some makeup.

Our public schools have been failing for as long as I can remember. The United States spends the most per capita than any other industrialized country in the world on education and we only have mediocre results to show for it. Our poorer kids believe that the only success available to them is if they can make a good rap song or be really good at basketball because our public schools don't teach anything about investments like the stock market, real estate, having your own business, the commodities market.