Here is a question for the left wing college elite

And you clearly didn't read my post. If you had read it, you wouldn't have started your reply off with an attempt at twisting what I said.

 

No he can't. He just wants a woe is me pity party.

 

Tell us what planet you live on. Are you going to pretend that 2001-2009 didn't happen? Shall I pull the data for your attempt to be facetious?

 

Um..... unemployment was 4.2% when Clinton left office. It was 7.2% when Bush left office. It was 4.8% when Obama left office.

There were 23 million new jobs created under Clinton, 1 million under baby Bush and 11 million under Obama.

I would go into stock market gains, jobs lost, housing market failures, financial crisis, surpluses, deficits and which happened under what President, but I'll save it for the rest of your failed argument.

 

The only industry that suffered was housing and what related to residential building and development.
You fail to mention that home appraisals dropped incredibly overnight, that mortgage lending was restructured, and that a 30 year mortgage rate dropped from 7.5% to less than 4.5% Where it remains today. Not mentioning these or the fact that unemployment outside of building didn't drop makes it obvious that you are not too aware of what happened.

 

Ford survived and thrived. So did Delta after 9/11. Why?

 

Do you know what will happen to Stafford Loans that have been defaulted on??

 

I'm NOT a Bush fan. But, let's set the record straight here:

Unemployment was at an all time low under Bush until 9 / 11... which history will not hold him accountable for. I do have some opinions along those lines, but the fact remains. Bush reduced unemployment.

 

Bush was responsible for that unemployment rate about as much as Trump is for the current one.

 

Home values were artificially inflated. Second mortgages and home equity lines of credit were given assuming property values would steadily and reliably rise like always. But they didn't. Unemployment didn't significantly rise. Artificially inflated home values plummeted. Overnight people were paying a 300k mortgage payment on a home they couldn't sell for 175k. It is called being upside down. It made no financial sense to pay it. So people let the banks take them back. And on top of that, interest rates dropped from 7.5% to 4.5% where they have remained for years.

 

ME. And I'll be using my BA in Fine Arts to do it!

In all seriousness, I agree with the point (i think) OP is making. Most college is a WASTE today. Sure- someone, somewhere should probably know the sociological effects of post-modern pre-impressionism on underprivaledged multicultural transgendered families... but maybe one or two people ever are going to make a living from that knowledge. The country needs people who make stuff and fix stuff, and thats where the money is always going to be. Thats what people need to be learning.

Dont go into debt for something that no one wants to pay you to do.

Trust me, I learned the hard way.

 

No, They're not "much bigger". And I'm amazed and shocked that you object to spending to help those who need help but you don't mind paying for such enormous waste and graft as there is in the defense department with their $200 hammers and continuation of obsolete programs and production.

 

I think the "trade school" or polytechnic is a good idea. Community Colleges used to do this, but they aspire to be more like universities, to prepare students for the transfer and continued study in a university. Private for profit trade schools fill the gap, some are quite crummy, they're financed with student loans and have tenuous accreditation.

Trump just launched a major drive promoting trade schools, I don't have the details, it seems like a step in the right direction. Ideally Trump's proposal could be coupled with local businesses so the schools would impart skills needed by local employers; nurses, architectural draftsmen, HVAC technicians, plumbers... In Hollywood one would find a school for audio and lighting trades, in New York City for bookkeeping, in San Francisco for coding...

I expect the academic community will deride the effort, their agenda doesn't fit in the concept of teaching a trade, there's no place for safe spaces, triggers, banned guest speakers or hate speech issues. Students in trade school just want the marketable skills private enterprise demands.

 

What drives the massive layoffs?

 

More claims and no evidence. College graduates have higher incomes, higher employment rates, contribute more to charity, are less reliant on social programs, pay more taxes, etc., etc., etc.

 

I must not have been clear.

Going to college is not bad. Going to college to learn engineering or medicine or computer programming or business management or advanced science... these are all great.
Going to college to learn art is not. Art is a hobby. Going into debt to learn a hobby is a good way to get behind in life.

 

Can you be a little more specific? You are saying learning art in college is bad. There are a lot of ways to study art.

 

Graphic artists make a decent living doing illustrations for corporations.

The daughter of good friends studied art history. She began working as a curator and put together some impressive shows. An executive recruiting corporation offered her a director position at a prestigious art museum in Europe. She is doing very well for herself.

 

The person that defaults can't hold a government job afterwards. So what? What happens to most people that default on loans?

Ultimately the taxpayer gets left holding the bag. Nothing in life is free! Someone pays. Someone *ALWAYS* pays.

 

So what? The issue was layoffs! This is just one more argumentative fallacy. This one is known as the non sequitur.

Why does the left on here *always* resort to argumentative fallacies? You can't win an argument that way!

 

So what you're saying is that YOU made a mistake and you're bitter.

Oh well

 

You better hope you don't lose your home and job through no fault of your own, and end up on welfare yourself. But, of course, your awesome principles wouldn't allow you to accept welfare. Isn't that right?
If you're naive enough to believe it can't happen, I suggest you think again. Remember the Great Depression? Whatever happened to all those secure jobs?
Everyone, including you, is just a couple of missed mortgage or rent payments away from homelessness.

 

Nope. You've swallowed the talking point lies of the Marxist Democrats clear down to your toes.

1. Unemployment is just one factor in determining the health of the job market. Others include the labor force participation rate, the part time/full time ratio of new jobs, and the employment-population ratio. And there are others yet.

2. I am just simply amazed every single day at how little math Marxist Democrats know. You cannot determine the number of jobs created by subtracting two points on a curve. The number of jobs is the INTEGRAL of the curve. Do you understand how to do an integral? What it actually is?

3. The number of jobs created by each president can be related to their unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate. Under both Clinton and Obama the labor force participation rate went DOWN. That drives the unemployment rate down also, although it is done so artificially. It doesn't mean more people are working. It doesn't mean a lot of jobs were being created which put people to work. Under Bush, however, the lfpr went UP. Meaning enough jobs, enough GOOD jobs, were being created to both attract a lot of people into the work force and to drive down the unemployment rate.

Which economy would *you* rather be in? One where lots of good jobs are being create and the lfpr is going up or one where fewer good jobs are being created and people are leaving the workforce in droves.

And forget the Marxist Democrat canard about the lfpr going down because of baby boomers retiring. The age cohort of 65-up was the *only* cohort under Obama where the labor force participation rate was going up. Meaning more people in the 65-up cohort were working than retiring! Many seniors were actually going *back* to work because of the lousy economy and no interest earnings on their savings.

 

I bought a bunch of really good second hand furniture from a banker who thought HE had it made. He was living with his parents at the time.

Don't take anything for granted

 

Bush did not raise the unemployment rate. All he did was hold the line... except that the Bush family was part of the reason for 9 / 11.