The Biden Presidency - 2020

[bronconick]

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/st...05545718800388

Make sure to listen until the end

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by bronconick

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/st...05545718800388

Make sure to listen until the end

That was hilarious.

[cuervo72]

Are we sure that's not J.K. Simmons?

[Edward64]

Something that I didn't notice originally - nothing on high-speed rail in Biden's Infrastructure/Jobs plan. Article says because of Biden/Amtrack's close relationship and can see airlines lobbying here also.

How high speed trains got railroaded in Biden's infrastructure plan - POLITICO

I think something like Atlanta to Miami with stops in Orlando. Atlanta going north to New York would be fantastic. DFW to Houston etc.

[Edward64]

I'm assuming that Biden approved this but debatable they should have. I guess a pro is it shines Biden in a good, positive, fatherly light. But it brings the focus back on the black sheep Hunter. And don't think Hunter needs money so why publish a memoir.

Someone that cheats on his wife with dead brother's wife shows that he is scum. (Dead brother's wife also but can maybe excuse her for being taken advantaged of). Losing a laptop with sensitive materials ain't good.

So my best guess is Biden wants to get all the bad news out of the way right now which would be forgotten/overshadowed by 3 years of good, recovery news.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-...ention-memoir/

President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden is opening up in his first TV interviews since his father took office. In separate interviews with "CBS Sunday Morning" and "CBS This Morning," he answered questions about a Department of Justice investigation, whether a computer reportedly containing confidential information was his, his battle with substance abuse, his new memoir and more.

[Lathum]

I’m sure all the tolerant evangelicals on the right will practice what they preach and totally forgive him for his sins.

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting editorial in the WaPost about how the plan's focus on increasing EV fast charging stations may be chasing an outdated technology.

Instead, it argues for focus on battery swapping. You just pull into the station, and they take out your drained battery and swap in a fully charged one.

I think that makes sense. Even an hour to charge on a long roadtrip can be a lot for people. Yeah, you can try and time it to match up with a lunch break, etc. but it adds a complexity that you don't have when you can fill up with gas in 5 minutes.

If, however, you could swap out the battery in 15 minutes, and that's reliable and ubiquitous, then you are really starting to make EVs attractive.

[JPhillips]

The preempted coup arrests in Jordan are wild. Apparently, the crown prince has been arrested and his mother is implicated as well. There are also reports of a Gulf nation being implicated, so UAE or the Saudis?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Interesting editorial in the WaPost about how the plan's focus on increasing EV fast charging stations may be chasing an outdated technology.

Instead, it argues for focus on battery swapping. You just pull into the station, and they take out your drained battery and swap in a fully charged one.

I think that makes sense. Even an hour to charge on a long roadtrip can be a lot for people. Yeah, you can try and time it to match up with a lunch break, etc. but it adds a complexity that you don't have when you can fill up with gas in 5 minutes.

If, however, you could swap out the battery in 15 minutes, and that's reliable and ubiquitous, then you are really starting to make EVs attractive.

If I was driving a Tesla, I don't know if I want to trust someone to swap out a possibly non-Tesla-approved battery for me.

I'm good with plenty of charging stations everywhere, at every third exit or so. Get charging down to 20 min for 80+% and I'm all in.

[JPhillips]

Didn't expect sports, corporations, and the military to be too liberal.

[Edward64]

Article that has polling on some of the GA legislation.

Americans Oppose Many Voting Restrictions — But Not Voter ID Laws | FiveThirtyEight

According to a YouGov/The Economist poll from March 20-23, Americans narrowly oppose “laws that would make it more difficult to vote,” 44 percent to 39 percent. But of course, that’s an extremely broad categorization that covers everything from laws cleaning up the voter rolls to those outright banning no-excuse absentee voting and slashing polling places. Reality is more nuanced: Americans are fine with some voting restrictions but balk at others.

public opinion is strongly against perhaps the most controversial provision of Georgia’s new law: the prohibition on giving food or water to people waiting in line to vote. In a different, March 29 poll, YouGov found that only 18 percent of Americans thought handing out food and water should be illegal, while 69 percent thought it should be allowed.

Guess I am in the minority on this one.

Likewise, in the most recent YouGov/The Economist poll (conducted March 27-30), only 33 percent of Americans agreed with the part of Georgia’s new law that makes ballot drop boxes only accessible during early-voting hours. By contrast, 44 percent thought drop boxes should be open at all times.

I'm part of the 44% (but drop off boxes in a secured location).

On the other hand, the public strongly supports one of the other major stipulations of Georgia’s new law: the ID requirement for absentee voting. That latest YouGov/The Economist poll found that Americans support requiring a photo ID in order to vote absentee, 53 percent to 28 percent. And Georgians are even more supportive: 74 percent of registered voters in the UGA/AJC poll backed requiring voters to include a copy of their photo ID or other documentation in order to vote by mail. Only 22 percent were opposed.

Yay, part of the mainstream.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Article that has polling on some of the GA legislation.

Americans Oppose Many Voting Restrictions — But Not Voter ID Laws | FiveThirtyEight




Guess I am in the minority on this one.



I'm part of the 44% (but drop off boxes in a secured location).



Yay, part of the mainstream.

The food and drink thing was so stupid, is so stupid. I think it literally exposed the true intent to all of it and I just don't understand why the GOP (who wants to feign that this really isn't jim crow) would put that in. It's just so evil IMO. Old women that would stand in line potentially for hours to vote in foreign countries we view as patriots for standing up to vote (especially if it's a fledgling democracy) but in Georgia they're like "good luck!" muwahahahaha "hope you don't need food or water!" muwahahahaha

assholes.

[Ksyrup]

The worst parts of that law are the ones that give control of local elections processes to the legislature. Hardly anyone is talking about them.

The food and water thing is bad not simply because of what it does, but the fact that it even exists at all - it's a recognition that lines are going to be so long in certain places that people would actually need food or water. There's absolutely no explanation for it that could justify it from that perspective.

[Lathum]

So can these laws be challenged to the Supreme Court, or no since states control their elections?

Either way, I think this backfires big on the GOP. It is the classic the tighter they squeeze the more things slip through their fingers.

I also look forward to the media coverage the first time someone is actuality arrested for providing water to thirsty people.

[tarcone]

$ Trillion on public transport and none for high speed trains? Is that right?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that makes sense. Even an hour to charge on a long roadtrip can be a lot for people. Yeah, you can try and time it to match up with a lunch break, etc. but it adds a complexity that you don't have when you can fill up with gas in 5 minutes.

If, however, you could swap out the battery in 15 minutes, and that's reliable and ubiquitous, then you are really starting to make EVs attractive.

Agreed. Edward's point is well-taken, but my (limited) understanding is that we aren't likely to get down to what most people would consider a reasonable recharge time anytime soon. I don't think it matters how good that option is if we can't get there - but I'm not certain that's the case.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Agreed. Edward's point is well-taken, but my (limited) understanding is that we aren't likely to get down to what most people would consider a reasonable recharge time anytime soon. I don't think it matters how good that option is if we can't get there - but I'm not certain that's the case.

Right now at least ...

How fast does a supercharger charge a Tesla?

They take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on the original 85 kWh Model S. The charging stations provide high-power direct-current (DC) charging power directly to the battery, bypassing the internal charging power supply.

Googling says there are 4 different types of electric car batteries. No idea how "compatible" the chargers are between those 4.

I do see the concern about investing in a nationwide network of chargers that are not compatible (good old early era with DOS and Windows 3.1) or have to "upgrade" every few years (e.g. early days of PCs & Laptops where it seems software forced a hardware upgrade every 2 years).

All in all, would prefer a 20 min charge time for 80% vs swappable batteries (Tesla batteries weigh 540kg or about 1,200lbs).

On one hand, I can see gas stations jumping on this because that is 20 min people have to spend into their stores (where they make the real money). On the other hand, I can see WalMart and other big box stores putting in charging stations to attract the same captive audience.

[miked]

Yes, nobody is there with their VOTE OBAMA shirts passing out food and water, that is already illegal. Volunteer groups go to the poor neighborhoods where people wait in lime 4+ hours to vote and give them food and water. I've also seen port-a-pottys set up around those areas. People are not waiting 4 hours in Gilmer, or Bibb (or any of these other redneck counties). They are literally waiting in lines for hours in Fulton. They are closing DMVs in those counties as well, making it harder to get IDs. If they coupled this with a law allowing mobile DMVs to set up and give people free IDs in the poor neighborhoods (where people may take MARTA and not drive), then that is one thing. But they are quite literally targeting the areas they want to reduce voting, desite the fact that the only cases of voter fraud are some republican voters and the shady ones in FL where the GOP donors apparently funded the campaigns of challengers with the same name of democrat incumbents.

[Edward64]

$1.7T is the number below but I thought the $ was more like $700-$800B. $1.7T is essentially the Jobs plan minus some pork. Compared to other priorities, I do hope Biden sticks to no or $10K and continue 0% interest for the foreseeable future.

I'm all for helping out but pure forgiveness doesn't sit well with me. Have these folks work off part of the student loans by doing weekend work on infrastructure projects.

Student loan forgiveness: What Biden is considering for student debt

Citing mounting debt for current generations of college graduates, many Democrats have asked Biden to commit to $50,000 in federal student loan forgiveness per borrower, putting mounting pressure on him to bypass Congress through the use of executive action.

Student loan debt reached an all-time high in 2020 of more than $1.7 trillion. The average graduate also reached a record in loan debt of over $30,000 in 2019 for the first time since U.S. News and World Report tracked data, which is more than $6,000 higher in debt on average than a graduate held 10 years prior.

The president has held off in the past, arguing that he doesn’t have the authority to do so, though previous presidents including Barack Obama and Donald Trump have provided student debt relief through similar action.

Biden has also said that student debt forgiveness would need to be justified against other policy priorities.
:
“Studies show that student debt cancellation can substantially increase Black and Latinx household wealth and help close the racial wealth gap, provide immediate relief to millions who are struggling during this pandemic and recession, and give a boost to our struggling economy through a consumer-driven economic stimulus that can result in greater home-buying rates and housing stability, higher college completion rates, and greater small business formation,” the pair said in a statement last fall urging the next president to cancel federal student loan debts.

Biden said student loans should have 0% interest – a move he enacted alongside the repayment freeze through September – as well as expanded student loan forgiveness for public-sector workers. He’s also canceled debt for students who were defrauded by for-profit schools.

[Ksyrup]

I kinda view student debt forgiveness the way I view immigration - I'm fine, in theory, with helping those who are stuck in the moment, but without wholesale changes to the way things work going forward, it's nothing more than a temporary fix for what will continue to be an ongoing problem. So, if we're going to half-ass it, I think we'd be better off doing nothing, or providing partial assistance.

There are a lot of things about the 50's "American dream" path that need to be re-thought given where we are as a society. Should everyone really be pushing for a college degree and home ownership, for example? Should there be more focus on trades, and less stigma to skipping the college experience for direct work experience or targeted post-HS programs? I don't know what the answer is, but college is not worth what it costs in a lot of situations. It feels like a college degree is required for many jobs because that's just what everyone requires.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm all for helping out but pure forgiveness doesn't sit well with me. Have these folks work off part of the student loans by doing weekend work on infrastructure projects.

Does this include older people who got cheap college back in the day through taxpayer funds?

[albionmoonlight]

Going forward, I'd be fine telling colleges/universities "Hey, if you want your students to be eligible for federally subsidized loans and grants, then you cannot increase costs more than [some inflation metric] - 0.5% a year."

It would take a while, but it would make college more affordable over the long term.

[JPhillips]

The problem for public schools is that states cut budgets to such a degree that they could never meet that obligation without massive cut backs.

[RainMaker]

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does this include older people who got cheap college back in the day through taxpayer funds?

Feel free to provide your link(s) so we can all be better educated and make sure we are comparing apples-to-apples.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Feel free to provide your link(s) so we can all be better educated and make sure we are comparing apples-to-apples.

Previous generations paid significantly less for their college education. This was due to massive investment in education by our government (both state and federal).

So if your solution is that people should have to work off any help they received from the government to afford school, why wouldn't it apply to older generations that received far more help than anyone today is asking? Only seems fair.

Because as it stands, our situation is what it is because that older generation gutted higher education the minute they no longer needed it for themselves.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Previous generations paid significantly less for their college education. This was due to massive investment in education by our government (both state and federal).

So if your solution is that people should have to work off any help they received from the government to afford school, why wouldn't it apply to older generations that received far more help than anyone today is asking? Only seems fair.

Because as it stands, our situation is what it is because that older generation gutted higher education the minute they no longer needed it for themselves.

I'll wait for your link(s) with some facts, $ and context.

[RainMaker]

What facts are you looking for? That school is much more expensive today?

Average Cost of College Has Jumped an Incredible 3,009% in 50 Years

[cuervo72]

Yeah but that article isn't an actual receipt, RainMaker! You gotta bring first-person proof from someone who was in school in 1971!

(As well as paystubs for the bootstraps part of the equation.)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What facts are you looking for? That school is much more expensive today?

Average Cost of College Has Jumped an Incredible 3,009% in 50 Years

Nvm, I see you were trolling. Let's continue ignoring each other.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Previous generations paid significantly less for their college education. This was due to massive investment in education by our government (both state and federal).

I think this is the same flawed approach to thinking about education that we often have in healthcare. The world simply isn't the same as it was. Using your 50-year timeline, we spend more as a % of GDP on education now than we did in 1970, at which time it was sharply on the rise from previous levels.

Specialization of labor, training, overdependence on college education as compared to vocational skills as I've talked about in the past, all of these have had an impact. It simply isn't true to frame it as 'too bad we won't invest like we did in the past'. To do free college for everyone or whatever you have to be willing to invest several orders of magnitude more than has been done before.

There's definitely an argument to be made for that, but this isn't it. Some aspects of life cost more now largely because of the advances we've made - there are possibilities available that simply weren't there a half-century ago at *any* price.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by KSyrup

Should everyone really be pushing for a college degree and home ownership, for example? Should there be more focus on trades, and less stigma to skipping the college experience for direct work experience or targeted post-HS programs? I don't know what the answer is, but college is not worth what it costs in a lot of situations. It feels like a college degree is required for many jobs because that's just what everyone requires.

This. In the internet age, there's no reason for education to be gated behind a formal university in most fields. Education should be a lifetime process and valued based on the demonstrable skills, abilities, and knowledge that come from it. Diplomas are dinosaurs.

[Edward64]

I know westerners will criticize this move but I lean to being okay with this. He remains pretty popular with Russians, is somewhat of a benevolent dictator (just don't threaten him personally or politically), and has stabilized Russia (or arguably brought Russian back) from the disastrous Yeltsin era.

I'm from the camp that western democracy/republic doesn't work for many countries.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimi...dential-terms/

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law on Monday a change to the country's constitution that will allow him to run for two more six-year terms, granting himself the chance to remain in power until 2036. The Russian leader, 68, has already run the country for more than two decades, and with his recent crackdown on political opponents and civil society, he has made it clear that there's little room for dissent.

A copy of the new law was posted on the government's legal information website on Monday, confirming that the legislation — the success of which was really never in doubt — had been finalized. Prior to the new law, Putin would have been required to step down after his fourth and current term in 2024.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm a hard no on that. It's wrong for a leader to change the law to keep themselves in power longer on a fundamental level. Doesn't matter how good or bad they are otherwhise. Putin is obviously trying to destabilize other countries, and is in general a hostile actor to US interests.

It's weird to me that someone concerned with the threat from China would want someone like Putin to stay in power.

[Lathum]

He literally had the leader of the opposition poisoned, then when he survived sent him to a prison labor camp. Benevolent is not a word I would use to describe him.

[Edward64]

Biden has come a long way since May 2019 with the below quote.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Wednesday night that China was “not competition” for the U.S., prompting blowback from prominent members of both political parties.

At an event in Iowa City, Biden was explaining why he believes concerns that China could eventually surpass the U.S. as a world superpower and economic force are overstated.

“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” the former vice president said.

“I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us,” he added.

Really hope he's got his head on straight now. China is the #1 long term threat. I'm hoping he really believes this vs China being a convenient scapegoat to help sell his bill.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...20a0e308943ade

Pushing for trillions of dollars in development spending, President Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers are directing Americans’ eyes to the rear-view mirror, pointing to a booming, ambitious China they say is threatening to quickly overtake the United States in global clout and capacity.

It’s a national security pitch for a domestic spending program: that the $2 trillion proposal for investments in U.S. transport and energy, manufacturing, internet and other sectors will make the United States more competitive in the face of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s massive infrastructure-building campaign.

The argument is that competition today with China is more about economic and technological gains than arms — and its outcome will impact the United States’ financial growth and influence, its ability to defend U.S. security alliances and interests abroad, and the daily lives of Americans.

China under Xi has “an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world,” Biden said before launching his proposal last week. “That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.”

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's weird to me that someone concerned with the threat from China would want someone like Putin to stay in power.

Agreed. At least China doesn't really give a shit to interfere in US elections. China plays by some rules, whereas Putin doesn't play by any.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm a hard no on that. It's wrong for a leader to change the law to keep themselves in power longer on a fundamental level. Doesn't matter how good or bad they are otherwise. Putin is obviously trying to destabilize other countries, and is in general a hostile actor to US interests.

You are speaking from a western centric POV. And your opposition is understandable. If I was a regular Russian, I would prefer Putin over Yeltsin and Gorby. There's a lot of good and bad from the regular Russian POV, but more good than bad I think.

It's weird to me that someone concerned with the threat from China would want someone like Putin to stay in power.

Yes, Russia is still a threat. But a waning threat. Russia can be controlled and deflected much easier than China. China is a growing threat.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

He literally had the leader of the opposition poisoned, then when he survived sent him to a prison labor camp. Benevolent is not a word I would use to describe him.

I qualified it with

is somewhat of a benevolent dictator (just don't threaten him personally or politically)

Also, the opposition leader is an idiot. He was home free and purposely went back to the lion's den with a miscalculated sense of self-worth. You play in the big leagues, you make a poor bet, you pay for it.

[Lathum]

Thats like saying John Wilkes Booth was a great guy and amazing actor, except for the whole Lincoln assassination thing.

You can't just dismiss it as some minor character flaw.

[cuervo72]

Have we proved E64 isn't a regular Russian?

(Just looking for facts, you know.)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Thats like saying John Wilkes Booth was a great guy and amazing actor, except for the whole Lincoln assassination thing.

You can't just dismiss it as some minor character flaw.

I'm not arguing that Putin isn't a bad guy. I'm arguing that he has done more good than bad for the regular Russian, and he has done well for his country since the Yeltsin/Gorby days.

FWIW, some insights.

Putin’s Russia, 20 years on – POLITICO

Putin knew what his fellow citizens craved. “Russians have had no sense of stability for the past 10 years,” he told state television ahead of March 2000 presidential elections. “We hope to return this feeling.”

Over the next eight years, aided by rocketing prices for oil — Russia’s main export — Putin set about doing just that. By May 2008, toward the end of his second term in office, salaries were not only being paid on time, but they were higher than ever. The streets of major cities began to fill with advertisements for easy loans, and people long accustomed to frugality suddenly found they could afford foreign holidays, new cars and plasma-screen TVs.

Although political freedoms were being curtailed, independent media strangled, and money that should have been used to build up vital infrastructure simply siphoned out of the country, many Russians stayed silent. After all, it seemed churlish to complain about such things when you could spend two weeks a year at a Turkish Black Sea resort and then come back to your new home entertainment center.

“People agreed on a pact with the devil,” said Oleg Orlov, the head of Memorial, Russia’s oldest human rights organization. “They said, ‘We will stay out of the social and political process and concentrate on our private lives — just don’t touch us and leave us a small slice of the profits from your oil booty.’”

It was, as Russian intellectuals like to say, a case of “sausages in exchange for freedom.”

Sausages won out.

“What good is freedom of speech if my fridge is empty?” an elderly woman asked me in the central city of Voronezh in 2007. I wasn’t sure what to reply, so I mumbled something about how, in an ideal world, she would have both. My answer failed to convince her. “Both?” she said. “Who is going to give me both?”

Putin received praise from unlikely quarters. “Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people,” said Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet dissident writer. “And he started to do what was possible — a slow and gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated, immediately.”

The below quote is interesting. I don't know what trust rating means but his popularity rating has remained about 59%.

The anniversary of Putin’s second decade in power has been accompanied by a tangible cooling of Russia’s passion for the ex-KGB officer who has already outlasted three U.S. presidents and been accused of helping put a fourth into the White House.

In May, Putin’s trust ratings fell to a 13-year low of just 31 percent as discontent simmered over an increase to the pension age, widespread poverty and relentless allegations of corruption against the political elite. Putin came to power promising stability, but his foes are increasingly drawing comparisons with Yeltsin’s “wild” 1990s.

In my trips across Russia, far fewer people seem willing to praise Putin and his policies. Instead, anger and disappointment are much more common.

[GrantDawg]

I am very not comfortable that people are fine with "political freedoms were being curtailed" as long as the trains are running on time. It sounds very familiar somehow.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Also, the opposition leader is an idiot. He was home free and purposely went back to the lion's den with a miscalculated sense of self-worth. You play in the big leagues, you make a poor bet, you pay for it.

Was he dressing provocatively too?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I am very not comfortable that people are fine with "political freedoms were being curtailed" as long as the trains are running on time. It sounds very familiar somehow.

Sounds like propaganda trying to wear us down, to me.

[JPhillips]

Putin's great as long as you have no windows.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Was he dressing provocatively too?

This was the exact thought I had, talk about victim blaming....

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This. In the internet age, there's no reason for education to be gated behind a formal university in most fields. Education should be a lifetime process and valued based on the demonstrable skills, abilities, and knowledge that come from it. Diplomas are dinosaurs.

Except they're not. So long as employers require degrees and diplomas as a proxy for skill, they're going to be highly desired. That's not on the people wanting to get degrees - if you tell everyone that you need a degree to get even the most menial office job* then there will be a huge market for them. That's on the hiring companies requiring degrees for people to get a job. Why wouldn't people put a premium on getting that piece of paper if the piece of paper is required in so many fields where it shouldn't be?

SI

*Yes, you can get a well paying job as a plumber, contractor, etc - but, unless you own the business, there's a limit to how high you can go - whereas I think the path to advancement in the white collar world is more clear (even if some of it is a farce). And, in general, white collar work has better working conditions - no one's out in 100 degree sun or slogging through literal poop. And it's not as if these fields are devoid of their own low paid internship/apprenticeship phase. That said - this isn't about "blue collar" vs "white collar" so much as it's stupid how many jobs these days require college degrees and that's like 90% on the employers and 10% on the employees not the other way around.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I am very not comfortable that people are fine with "political freedoms were being curtailed" as long as the trains are running on time. It sounds very familiar somehow.

It's weird to think of Putin to Mussolini as the latter is now like history's stooge second banana to history's greatest monster. But, hm...

SI

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Except they're not. So long as employers require degrees and diplomas as a proxy for skill, they're going to be highly desired. That's not on the people wanting to get degrees - if you tell everyone that you need a degree to get even the most menial office job* then there will be a huge market for them. That's on the hiring companies requiring degrees for people to get a job. Why wouldn't people put a premium on getting that piece of paper if the piece of paper is required in so many fields where it shouldn't be?

I agree with you that a lot of this is on those doing the hiring - that's the point, that society overvalues that piece of paper. As to the why, this is hardly the only aspect of life where we haven't progressed with changes in the world fast enough, wouldn't you say? People have a different list as far as that's concerned, but I would chalk most of it up to tradition/reflexive thinking. There are all sorts of examples of successful entreprenuers who were college dropouts. It is often a stand-in for a low-grade background check; i.e. if you have a degree we know you aren't a total screwup.