[throwaway_law]

It used to be society wanted people to have an education and that people with degrees would get higher paying jobs which resulted in a net benefit to society through higher taxes.

Now education is just looked at as a way to in debt young people for the rest of their lives. Because 1M people default on their student loans every year and the bubble is on the verge of popping, the parasites are looking to own 10% of every dollar you make to finance your education.

The problem isn't that an API doesn't exist to automatically debit 10% from the people you own, the problem is an education doesn't get you a job anymore, much less a high paying job.

Instead of owning peoples labor via API, why not consider the 1 Presidential candidate who is campaigning to forgive all existing student debt and make college free moving forward by god forbid...taxing the same banks the taxpayers bailed out from bankruptcy just 10 years ago.

[rland]

A world where algorithms trash your CV if it doesn't have the phrase "B.A." or "B.S,", and where the cost of that keyword is an irrevocable tithe on 10% of your human output.

My lord, people, this might be a bad idea.

[Mirioron]

At first you mention how higher education doesn't get you a good job anymore, but then you mention support for a candidate who will make college free. Don't you see the contradiction here? The reason college graduates have difficulty finding good jobs compared to the past is because so many people have a degree. Even if you forgive all of the student loans and make college free, people still won't find jobs based on college. College might not even get you anywhere because it'll become a default requirement for every job. There will be some other criteria used instead and somebody's probably going to make money off of that too.

There just aren't enough jobs that require the qualifications of English literature majors or similar.

[throwaway_law]

>Even if you forgive all of the student loans and make college free, people still won't find jobs based on college.

Having educated unemployed people is bad yes, but its an infinite improvement on millions of educated unemployed people saddled with debt they will never in their life times be able to pay off.

[pmiller2]

That’s still better than the present, where college still doesn’t really get you anywhere, except in a mountain of debt.

[JamesBarney]

"The problem isn't that an API doesn't exist to automatically debit 10% from the people you own, the problem is an education doesn't get you a job anymore, much less a high paying job."

In classical education if you don't get a high paying job it's your problem not the university's because they've already been paid. The whole idea behind this change is to shift some of that risk of un/underemployment to the university. So if the university isn't able to get you the high paying job they promised that's their problem too(b/c they don't get paid).

[throwaway_law]

>In classical education if you don't get a high paying job it's your problem not the university's because they've already been paid.

I don't think that "classical education", in classical education students were able to get part time jobs and pay their own way through school...there we no such things as student loans.

This concept of having to sell off parts of your future productivity at the ripe age of 17-18 is only being conceived because the federal government student loan guarantees and runaway artificial tuition costs supported have already imploded.

Nevertheless, these programs are not paid for/proposed by the universities themselves, but by investors...no matter what the college/university gets paid upfront, and they have no skin in the game.

[bilbo0s]

>The problem isn't that an API doesn't exist to automatically debit 10% from the people you own

Something's just really wrong about that statement. It saddens me. Didn't we fight a war to put an end to stuff like this?

Also, a president is not going to wave a magic wand and fix this system. If you want to support that candidate, by all means do so, it's one of the habits of healthy hearts and minds in a democracy. Just realize going in what's actually possible and what's political marketing. Fixing this is going to take a lot more work on everyone's part than simply casting a vote.

Finally, the wealthy should pay more. No argument from me on that one. Having said that, there is a game theoretical optimum on how much you should tax each person in a society. We don't want to get carried away with taxing anyone for political reasons. Liberals do that with anything that will disproportionately stick it to bankers, and conservatives have done that with anything that will disproportionately stick it to blacks. (The recent Reductio Ad Absurdum of conservatives demanding that college athletes pay taxes on scholarships is an example I'm guessing you might appreciate of how political targeting can get just a bit ridiculous.)

[throwaway_law]

>Just realize going in what's actually possible and what's political marketing. Fixing this is going to take a lot more work on everyone's part than simply casting a vote.

You're not wrong, but at the same token why are Presidential candidates always speaking about things like: taxes; immigration; same sex marriage; healthcare?

The President doesn't control any of those things, doesn't have those powers...that's all the legislature.

While it may be just marketing for a candidate to say they will forgive existing students loans and provide for free education paid for by taxing the banks on what are currently tax free transactions...if that candidate wins, the 2 political parties will begin listening to voters and do what it takes to win their votes back.