The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: HeadedWest2029 on November 17, 2020, 07:52:12 AM
-
Assuming Biden could push through a student loan forgiveness program, would you be in favor? I'm genuinely curious, because I honestly could go either way on this one.
-
Yes, forgiving student loans would be a great economic stimulus for the nation and we need one right now.
-
I'm having a hard time getting behind loan forgiveness across the board. I could see forgiving student loans in exchange for working in underserved markets or areas that have a labor shortage. I'm thinking teachers in inner cities are impoverished rural areas or doctors in bumfuck North Dakota, etc.
-
I would be opposed to loan forgiveness in the majority of situations. Maybe temporary deferments with low/no interest accrual for those experiencing significant issues in the current climate.
-
I would much rather see something more universal like a UBI or one time stimulus check than something that benefits only a select group of people. It seems unfair that people who paid off their loans early, never took out loans, or never went to college would get nothing.
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
-
I was 70% in favor of it last week, the first time I saw it come up on the forum.
As I've done more reading I am more in favor.
I am even more in favor of a combination of a general cap w/ additional forgiveness with a program like Greystache suggests (but with easier approval than the PSLA program which has been a nightmare).
To me it is sort of gross to hang these outrageous loans on the backs of young people, when the folks in power were allowing huge loans to institutions that should have never qualified for the federal student loan program in the first place.
This newsweek piece had a good explanation of the various things being discussed in regards to loan forgiveness:
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-plan-forgive-student-loan-debt-explained-1547830
My understanding is that the executive order thing is if Dems don't win the Senate runoffs in GA. The hopes are for pushing bills through the correct channels rather than using EOs - but if McConnell continues to block bringing anything to a vote in the Senate then they are willing to use the EO.
-
I'm having a hard time getting behind loan forgiveness across the board. I could see forgiving student loans in exchange for working in underserved markets or areas that have a labor shortage. I'm thinking teachers in inner cities are impoverished rural areas or doctors in bumfuck North Dakota, etc.
Why should they get a break instead of people whose only job prospects are in the big cities?
The entire system of grotesquely high college costs and loans given to people who have absolutely zero understanding of how hard they will be to pay off is evil.
And the problem of evil is that no matter how you fight it, you end up with some amount of evil on your own conscience. Less than from not fighting it, but it's still there.
There is no option that won't treat some group less fair than others.
My vote is to undo the harm that people are still facing.
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
-
And, going forward, provide enough support for colleges that they can drop tuition and fees down to a reasonable number. If the state doesn't provide a college that has a major the student is taking within commuting distance, then provide a subsidy for room and board. That way, people in rural areas or who need to be in a specialist program aren't penalized for having to travel.
When I started college, I could live at my parents and drive or bike or ride a city bus to school, so room and board were free. Total tuition and fees for a 4 year degree were less than the average price of a new car, i.e., less than about $5k. Today, an equivalent benchmark would be about $37,000. I think it should be closer to $20k because it's actually possible to buy an acceptable new car for about that much so it would be a much better benchmark.
Toss in a room and board subsidy for people who live where there isn't a local college, or those who are in speciality programs that aren't taught locally, and you've got a system where folks can afford to go to college, even with loans.
It's a win-win for the country.
Even better would be to cut that cost in half yet again.
-
I think it sounds fine, even though I paid my kids’ college costs. Public universities should be tax funded as public education, which they used to be.
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
1) According to one website, $50K or less accounts for about 82.4% of the outstanding student loans. So, yes, it would make a real difference to most.
2) Couldn't they refinance with a lower balance and get lower payments? Might take an extra month. Meh.
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Hmmm, that's true. I'm going to be honest, I've never had any student loans because of scholarships and very generous parents, so I don't know exactly how they're serviced. For some reason I wasn't thinking of them like a mortgage with a set monthly payment.
I still think it's a good idea, but you have a very good point. To be an immediate help it would need to be paired with help refinancing loans as well, or an automatic recast or something, which seems unlikely to happen.
100% also this.
And, going forward, provide enough support for colleges that they can drop tuition and fees down to a reasonable number. If the state doesn't provide a college that has a major the student is taking within commuting distance, then provide a subsidy for room and board. That way, people in rural areas or who need to be in a specialist program aren't penalized for having to travel.
When I started college, I could live at my parents and drive or bike or ride a city bus to school, so room and board were free. Total tuition and fees for a 4 year degree were less than the average price of a new car, i.e., less than about $5k. Today, an equivalent benchmark would be about $37,000. I think it should be closer to $20k because it's actually possible to buy an acceptable new car for about that much so it would be a much better benchmark.
Toss in a room and board subsidy for people who live where there isn't a local college, or those who are in specialty programs that aren't taught locally, and you've got a system where folks can afford to go to college, even with loans.
It's a win-win for the country.
Even better would be to cut that cost in half yet again.
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
1) According to one website, $50K or less accounts for about 82.4% of the outstanding student loans. So, yes, it would make a real difference to most.
2) Couldn't they refinance with a lower balance and get lower payments? Might take an extra month. Meh.
What about $10K or less?
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Interesting tidbit from 2019s US News College issue:
"More than 80% of 2016 graduates from for-profit colleges had student loans, compared with 68% for those from private nonprofit colleges and 66% for those from public colleges. Graduates from for-profit colleges left school with, on average, $39,900 in student debt, according to a 2019 report from the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success."
There are really so many reasons to seriously consider forgiving student loan debt.
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Interesting tidbit from 2019s US News College issue:
"More than 80% of 2016 graduates from for-profit colleges had student loans, compared with 68% for those from private nonprofit colleges and 66% for those from public colleges. Graduates from for-profit colleges left school with, on average, $39,900 in student debt, according to a 2019 report from the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success."
There are really so many reasons to seriously consider forgiving student loan debt.
Only $40k average? That seems pretty reasonable for something that should provide a lifetime of increased earnings. Heck, it's only a bit above the price of an average new car.
-
I'm not in favor of blanket forgiveness but I would be in favor of letting private student loans be discharged in bankruptcy as well as an overhaul of the public student loan systems.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this problem between the schools, students, parents, societal norms, guidance counselors, government policy etc. Bailing them out holds nobody accountable, the people that profit the most from forgiveness are the schools and banks first and students second.
Universities should have some skin in the game if their degrees aren't translating to good paying jobs in the marketplace on average.
We (taxpayers) shouldn't be backing every 18 year old graduating senior's "right" to attend any college they want and pursue any degree they want regardless of cost and ROI considerations.
Community college should be free for 2 years to any qualifying student
Personal finance education courses PRIOR to taking out a student loan should be required
Parent student loans should be gotten rid of
4 year degree costs should be tied to average job starting pay of recent graduates. Why should engineers and english students pay the same amount for a degree when the average starting salary is completely different?
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Interesting tidbit from 2019s US News College issue:
"More than 80% of 2016 graduates from for-profit colleges had student loans, compared with 68% for those from private nonprofit colleges and 66% for those from public colleges. Graduates from for-profit colleges left school with, on average, $39,900 in student debt, according to a 2019 report from the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success."
There are really so many reasons to seriously consider forgiving student loan debt.
Only $40k average? That seems pretty reasonable for something that should provide a lifetime of increased earnings. Heck, it's only a bit above the price of an average new car.
Part of the problem is that so many people end up with student debt, but no degree.
-
Pass. Subsidize the interest rate even further and peg it to inflation and consider a personal finance class in public high school as a graduation "recommendation".
The 0% rate during the pandemic has been fantastic for me since I still have a not-small amount of loans but that's not sustainable for the long-term. I don't think the government should earn much money off of non-dischargeable lending to its citizens that ultimately are responsible for providing the economic backbone and are better in nearly every statistical category than uneducated citizens. And I'm not sure why I would receive relief for not paying them off sooner compared to others who already did, had more help, or didn't even go to college. Thus, a little education while still in high school about finances, budgeting, etc. would've been great not only for me but also secondhand to my parents (I love them but we were all clueless as I was heading away to school) and for students who aren't going to a four-year institution immediately after high school.
Agree with the others that federal and state funding should return to historical levels to keep tuition at state schools in check.
-
I never had student loans, so I have no skin in this game. But, I think the idea of "this doesn't help me, so I don't want anyone to have it" is kind of gross. I would like to see forgiveness as long as it's paired with some meaningful reform on how loans are disbursed and college is funded going forward. Colleges have no incentive to rein in costs as long as students are allowed to borrow more and more and more. I wouldn't mind a blanket across-the-board forgiveness with additional forgiveness for working with underserved populations (and shouldn't require the impossible hoops that the current PSLF program has).
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Interesting tidbit from 2019s US News College issue:
"More than 80% of 2016 graduates from for-profit colleges had student loans, compared with 68% for those from private nonprofit colleges and 66% for those from public colleges. Graduates from for-profit colleges left school with, on average, $39,900 in student debt, according to a 2019 report from the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success."
There are really so many reasons to seriously consider forgiving student loan debt.
Only $40k average? That seems pretty reasonable for something that should provide a lifetime of increased earnings. Heck, it's only a bit above the price of an average new car.
But degrees from for-profit institutions don't correlate to increased earnings down the road in the same way degrees from other institutions do. and also what Cranky said. The completion rate at for-profits is awful.
-
Voted no.
Why is a student loan any more deserving than car loans, home loans, business loans, credit car loans etc?
I guess I'm of the view that if you promised to pay someone back you should.
I'm also against executive action but I guess the ship has sailed on that. I kind of wish the republicans controlled the Congress right now so they could pass a slew of laws getting back much of the control Congress gave to the Presidency before Biden gets in (and for future presidents).
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Interesting tidbit from 2019s US News College issue:
"More than 80% of 2016 graduates from for-profit colleges had student loans, compared with 68% for those from private nonprofit colleges and 66% for those from public colleges. Graduates from for-profit colleges left school with, on average, $39,900 in student debt, according to a 2019 report from the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success."
There are really so many reasons to seriously consider forgiving student loan debt.
Only $40k average? That seems pretty reasonable for something that should provide a lifetime of increased earnings. Heck, it's only a bit above the price of an average new car.
But degrees from for-profit institutions don't don't correlate to increased earnings down the road in the same way degrees from other institutions do.
I've known hiring officials who will automatically throw out a resume with a for-profit school on it.
-
Voted no.
Why is a student loan any more deserving than car loans, home loans, business loans, credit car loans etc?
I guess I'm of the view that if you promised to pay someone back you should.
I'm also against executive action but I guess the ship has sailed on that. I kind of wish the republicans controlled the Congress right now so they could pass a slew of laws getting back much of the control Congress gave to the Presidency before Biden gets in (and for future presidents).
So, you think we should get rid of bankruptcy too?
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
Interesting tidbit from 2019s US News College issue:
"More than 80% of 2016 graduates from for-profit colleges had student loans, compared with 68% for those from private nonprofit colleges and 66% for those from public colleges. Graduates from for-profit colleges left school with, on average, $39,900 in student debt, according to a 2019 report from the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success."
There are really so many reasons to seriously consider forgiving student loan debt.
Only $40k average? That seems pretty reasonable for something that should provide a lifetime of increased earnings. Heck, it's only a bit above the price of an average new car.
But degrees from for-profit institutions don't don't correlate to increased earnings down the road in the same way degrees from other institutions do.
I've known hiring officials who will automatically throw out a resume with a for-profit school on it.
I once worked for a supervisor who had a degree from University of Phoenix. Worst supervisor I ever had. There is little to no academic rigor at those sorts of universities.
-
A little view on how student loans work up here in commie Scandinavia:
- You get a low-interest (slightly above mortgage rate) loan. No collateral needed, no test of means or anything. You are entitled to it if you are a student. This is provided by a government "bank" whose sole purpose is to give student loans. It's funded in the govvie market by bond issuance afaik. There is no market at all for private student debt.
- While you study, no interest accrues. You start paying back some months after you are no longer a student. That still applies even if you didn't finish your degree.
- If you finish your degree within the time it's supposed to take (i.e. dont dick around, take a year to travel etc) part of it is converted to a grant, so balance is reduced somewhat.
- It has some insurance built into it, so if you get reduced income from becoming long-time sick and unable to work etc you can apply for the interest to be frozen as in it does not accrue during said time. Not sure how it works or if it difficult to get as it was never relevant for me. If you are deemed permanently unable to ever work more than 50% due to some medial condition you can apply for having the remaining balance go away.
- Student debt is generally much lower as you normally don't pay for tuition at university as long as it's public institution.
- The debt is personal so if you go the debt goes.
So the real kicker on the loan side is that you get a uncolleteralized loan at a very low interest rate and no interest accrues while studying. The idea behind the system is that everyone should have the means to study regardless of your parent's income. In real life a lot require or feel they require a part-time job to make ends meet while studuying and paid internships are very common during the summer holidays. Currently the floating rate is 1.40%, and the cheapeast mortgae rates are around 1.20% (both adjustable rate so roughly follows money market rates)
-
A little view on how student loans work up here in commie Scandinavia:
- You get a low-interest (slightly above mortgage rate) loan. No collateral needed, no test of means or anything. You are entitled to it if you are a student. This is provided by a government "bank" whose sole purpose is to give student loans. It's funded in the govvie market by bond issuance afaik. There is no market at all for private student debt.
- While you study, no interest accrues. You start paying back some months after you are no longer a student. That still applies even if you didn't finish your degree.
- If you finish your degree within the time it's supposed to take (i.e. dont dick around, take a year to travel etc) part of it is converted to a grant, so balance is reduced somewhat.
- It has some insurance built into it, so if you get reduced income from becoming long-time sick and unable to work etc you can apply for the interest to be frozen as in it does not accrue during said time. Not sure how it works or if it difficult to get as it was never relevant for me.
- Student debt is generally much lower as you normally don't pay for tuition at university as long as it's public institution.
- The debt is personal so if you go the debt goes.
So the real kicker on the loan side is that you get a uncolleteralized loan at a very low interest rate and no interest accrues while studying. The idea behind the system is that everyone should have the means to study regardless of your parent's income. In real life a lot require or feel they require a part-time job to make ends meet while studuying and paid internships are very common during the summer holidays. Currently the floating rate is 1.40%, and the cheapeast mortgae rates are around 1.20% (both adjustable rate so roughly follows money market rates)
This is more or less how federal loans work here. There are two types of federal loans. Subsidized loans don't accrue interest while you're in school. Those are limited to $5500 to $7500 per year depending on which year of school you are in and are needs-based (and requires that you have parents willing to fill out the FAFSA). Unsubsidized loans are not needs-based but start accruing interest immediately even if payment is not yet due. In the likely event that those two types of loans aren't enough, there are also private loans to cover the difference. Private loans are non-dischargeable, but don't carry the same protections as a federal loan (those are still accruing interest despite the EO suspending federal loans). They also often require a co-signer. Fun fact: if the student dies then the parent is often still on the hook for the loan. If the parent dies, the loan is often immediately due even if payments are current.
And we expect 17 year-old kids to understand it all.
-
I'm not in favor of blanket forgiveness but I would be in favor of letting private student loans be discharged in bankruptcy as well as an overhaul of the public student loan systems.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this problem between the schools, students, parents, societal norms, guidance counselors, government policy etc. Bailing them out holds nobody accountable, the people that profit the most from forgiveness are the schools and banks first and students second.
Universities should have some skin in the game if their degrees aren't translating to good paying jobs in the marketplace on average.
We (taxpayers) shouldn't be backing every 18 year old graduating senior's "right" to attend any college they want and pursue any degree they want regardless of cost and ROI considerations.
Community college should be free for 2 years to any qualifying student
Personal finance education courses PRIOR to taking out a student loan should be required
Parent student loans should be gotten rid of
4 year degree costs should be tied to average job starting pay of recent graduates. Why should engineers and english students pay the same amount for a degree when the average starting salary is completely different?
I absolutely agree with the ones I bolded above.
I absolutely disagree with the last one though. Why should an English degree cost less just because starting salary is less. That just encourages more people to get degrees in fields that don't pay as well and typically have less jobs available. I'm not in favor of the opposite either. I can't really think of any reason degrees should cost different amounts other then maybe encouraging necessary but very understaffed fields (like I expect nursing to be soon if it isn't already)
-
I'm in favor of debt forgiveness. I had a very small student loan that I paid off but I have friends who owe a lot and it's really impacting their lives. If Biden does forgiveness I think it's really important that it extend across the board to federal and private loans. A friend told me their loan was federal but somehow privately funded and therefore they did not qualify for deferment during Covid even though they were out of work. Loan forgiveness won't mean much if large segments of people get left out in the cold.
-
I would benefit from student loan forgiveness, but I oppose it. Not to brag, but I make six figures—and that's true of MOST people who have six figures of debt. They've got medical degrees, law degrees, MBAs, and they have the income to support debt repayment. People like me do not need charity. And most middle- to low-income people have lower loan balances that they ought to be able to pay. The average monthly payment is only $200-300.
Now, some limited reforms might help. Maybe interest rate reductions for the very low-income, forgiveness for those who went to fraudulent schools, and making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy.
But blanket forgiveness for everybody isn't fair, and it isn't a good idea unless paired with broader reforms of the educational system. But those broader reforms will never happen—not in the Biden administration, at least.
-
I'm not in favor of blanket forgiveness but I would be in favor of letting private student loans be discharged in bankruptcy as well as an overhaul of the public student loan systems.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this problem between the schools, students, parents, societal norms, guidance counselors, government policy etc. Bailing them out holds nobody accountable, the people that profit the most from forgiveness are the schools and banks first and students second.
Universities should have some skin in the game if their degrees aren't translating to good paying jobs in the marketplace on average.
We (taxpayers) shouldn't be backing every 18 year old graduating senior's "right" to attend any college they want and pursue any degree they want regardless of cost and ROI considerations.
Community college should be free for 2 years to any qualifying student
Personal finance education courses PRIOR to taking out a student loan should be required
Parent student loans should be gotten rid of
4 year degree costs should be tied to average job starting pay of recent graduates. Why should engineers and english students pay the same amount for a degree when the average starting salary is completely different?
I absolutely agree with the ones I bolded above.
I absolutely disagree with the last one though. Why should an English degree cost less just because starting salary is less. That just encourages more people to get degrees in fields that don't pay as well and typically have less jobs available. I'm not in favor of the opposite either. I can't really think of any reason degrees should cost different amounts other then maybe encouraging necessary but very understaffed fields (like I expect nursing to be soon if it isn't already)
There are surprisingly few people with English degrees, and the internet clearly demonstrates that. ;-)
Also, my dd who has a degree in English and a grad degree in religious studies has a good job with a tech company and makes good $.
-
A little view on how student loans work up here in commie Scandinavia:
- You get a low-interest (slightly above mortgage rate) loan. No collateral needed, no test of means or anything. You are entitled to it if you are a student. This is provided by a government "bank" whose sole purpose is to give student loans. It's funded in the govvie market by bond issuance afaik. There is no market at all for private student debt.
- While you study, no interest accrues. You start paying back some months after you are no longer a student. That still applies even if you didn't finish your degree.
- If you finish your degree within the time it's supposed to take (i.e. dont dick around, take a year to travel etc) part of it is converted to a grant, so balance is reduced somewhat.
- It has some insurance built into it, so if you get reduced income from becoming long-time sick and unable to work etc you can apply for the interest to be frozen as in it does not accrue during said time. Not sure how it works or if it difficult to get as it was never relevant for me.
- Student debt is generally much lower as you normally don't pay for tuition at university as long as it's public institution.
- The debt is personal so if you go the debt goes.
So the real kicker on the loan side is that you get a uncolleteralized loan at a very low interest rate and no interest accrues while studying. The idea behind the system is that everyone should have the means to study regardless of your parent's income. In real life a lot require or feel they require a part-time job to make ends meet while studuying and paid internships are very common during the summer holidays. Currently the floating rate is 1.40%, and the cheapeast mortgae rates are around 1.20% (both adjustable rate so roughly follows money market rates)
This is more or less how federal loans work here. There are two types of federal loans. Subsidized loans don't accrue interest while you're in school. Those are limited to $5500 to $7500 per year depending on which year of school you are in and are needs-based (and requires that you have parents willing to fill out the FAFSA). Unsubsidized loans are not needs-based but start accruing interest immediately even if payment is not yet due. In the likely event that those two types of loans aren't enough, there are also private loans to cover the difference. Private loans are non-dischargeable, but don't carry the same protections as a federal loan (those are still accruing interest despite the EO suspending federal loans). They also often require a co-signer. Fun fact: if the student dies then the parent is often still on the hook for the loan. If the parent dies, the loan is often immediately due even if payments are current.
And we expect 17 year-old kids to understand it all.
Well, a 17-18yo is considered an adult in most places and encouraged to make all kinds of life changing decisions of their own accord. They don't have to understand every little detail or nuance of student loans to know whether or not it's a good idea. They'll know what the schooling costs per year and the interest rate. If that's more than what they'll gain over not doing it then pick something else.
As a 17yo, I made all those decisions simply and easily. I had a rough idea of the career path I wanted (IT, computers), I researched which degrees would be beneficial (CompSci, CompEng), compared their costs vs projected salary from various googled sources (pretty much equal, picked CompEng), then went for it.
-
I'm not in favor of blanket forgiveness but I would be in favor of letting private student loans be discharged in bankruptcy as well as an overhaul of the public student loan systems.
There is a lot of blame to go around for this problem between the schools, students, parents, societal norms, guidance counselors, government policy etc. Bailing them out holds nobody accountable, the people that profit the most from forgiveness are the schools and banks first and students second.
Universities should have some skin in the game if their degrees aren't translating to good paying jobs in the marketplace on average.
We (taxpayers) shouldn't be backing every 18 year old graduating senior's "right" to attend any college they want and pursue any degree they want regardless of cost and ROI considerations.
Community college should be free for 2 years to any qualifying student
Personal finance education courses PRIOR to taking out a student loan should be required
Parent student loans should be gotten rid of
4 year degree costs should be tied to average job starting pay of recent graduates. Why should engineers and english students pay the same amount for a degree when the average starting salary is completely different?
I absolutely agree with the ones I bolded above.
I absolutely disagree with the last one though. Why should an English degree cost less just because starting salary is less. That just encourages more people to get degrees in fields that don't pay as well and typically have less jobs available. I'm not in favor of the opposite either. I can't really think of any reason degrees should cost different amounts other then maybe encouraging necessary but very understaffed fields (like I expect nursing to be soon if it isn't already)
There are surprisingly few people with English degrees, and the internet clearly demonstrates that. ;-)
Also, my dd who has a degree in English and a grad degree in religious studies has a good job with a tech company and makes good $.
I didn't mean to sound as though I were picking on English majors, I was just following OP's example. I just don't think that the cost of the degree should be based their their expected salary, either way it may go. At the most I would support subsidizing degrees based on need
-
I would like to see forgiveness as long as it's paired with some meaningful reform on how loans are disbursed and college is funded going forward. Colleges have no incentive to rein in costs as long as students are allowed to borrow more and more and more.
This is how I feel about it. What is the point of casting student loan amnesty (I don't know, that's how I think of it) if we're going to continue offering student loans? That seems hypocritical. Private universities are too expensive - they have an artificial price floor due to subsidized gov loans - take away the loans and, with much pain and suffering from higher ed boardrooms, prices will drop.
-
I would benefit from student loan forgiveness, but I oppose it. Not to brag, but I make six figures—and that's true of MOST people who have six figures of debt. They've got medical degrees, law degrees, MBAs, and they have the income to support debt repayment. People like me do not need charity. And most middle- to low-income people have lower loan balances that they ought to be able to pay. The average monthly payment is only $200-300.
Now, some limited reforms might help. Maybe interest rate reductions for the very low-income, forgiveness for those who went to fraudulent schools, and making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy.
But blanket forgiveness for everybody isn't fair, and it isn't a good idea unless paired with broader reforms of the educational system. But those broader reforms will never happen—not in the Biden administration, at least.
Yep.
For all the talk of a "student loan crisis" it's really a minority of borrowers who are truly in over their heads, mainly those sucked in to for profit colleges or those that dropped out before getting a degree. Most borrowers service their loans just fine with pay from the career that their degree smoothed entry into. I would support targeted relief for those who are well and truly screwed but blanket forgiveness would waste a lot of money on people who really don't need it and miff a lot of people who worked hard to aggressively pay off their loans or chose lower tier educational paths for sensible financial reasons.
Also, if Biden does some version of forgiveness via Executive Order I think it will poison the chances for any substantive legislative action to address the underlying issues in the college loan game and we'll be right back here before too long. I suspect he will do it because a vocal chunk of his party wants ANYTHING to be done, but I don't think it's good policy.
-
This is terrible policy because it somehow manages to be both too broad and too narrow.
It provides "relief" to all debtors regardless of need or merit.
It excludes the majority of Americans who chose not to study past high school.
I like my social programs very broad (universal or nearly so), or very targeted. This is neither, so it's a hard pass for me. It's not like there aren't forgiveness programs already out there, focus on those.
-
Why not just allow students to declare bankruptcy?
My concern with the student loan forgiveness is that it doesn't address the underlying problem - people taking out loans they can't afford and inflating the cost of school. I think allowing bankruptcy would go further towards fixing both problems. Or am I missing something?
-
Why not just allow students to declare bankruptcy?
My concern with the student loan forgiveness is that it doesn't address the underlying problem - people taking out loans they can't afford and inflating the cost of school. I think allowing bankruptcy would go further towards fixing both problems. Or am I missing something?
Back in the seventies there were so many students abusing the system by graduating, immediately declaring bankruptcy to get their loans forgiven, and then -- after sticking it to the taxpayers who funded those loans -- carried on as if they had done nothing wrong.
I'm not talking about some edge case where someone got injured and couldn't work, so they went bankrupt.
I'm talking about people who graduated and intentionally refused to get a job for a few months so they could declare bankruptcy, then went out and got a job with no more student loans.
THAT'S why it's hard to get student loans dropped in bankruptcy proceedings. Because the greedy dicks who did this screwed it up for everyone else. Wonder how many of them are now old, wealthy, white, Trump supporters who yammer about those minorities and immigrants always wanting handouts?
-
Assuming Biden could push through a student loan forgiveness program, would you be in favor? I'm genuinely curious, because I honestly could go either way on this one.
I firmly disagree with this. Everyone is free to choose which college they go to, whether or no to accumulate debt, etc... Certainly a $50,000 bailout is insane. I strongly believe the individual needs to be responsible for his/her financial decisions. And yes, I understand that some people are economically disadvantaged and need help to rectify unfair birth situations.
I would instead be in support of financial assistance to certain groups of individuals. For example, underpaid teachers, or other important professions that don't earn on par with their benefit to society. I also support certain forms of economic assistance to disadvantaged groups, such as reparations (but a highly complex topic).
Any sort of bail-out or relief package needs massive amount of detail put into loopholes, to prevent people from taking advantage of the system and ensure fairness (to the extent possible).
-
I think especially right now, loan forgiveness is a good idea. Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, though, or we're going to be right back in the same situation in just a few years.
Will it really make a immediate difference, "right now", in people's finances? Yes, it would absolutely help those with under $10K or $50K in loans since that will automatically free up cashflow... but with those that still have loan balances outstanding after the forgiveness, there will be no change until it's paid off sooner.
1) According to one website, $50K or less accounts for about 82.4% of the outstanding student loans. So, yes, it would make a real difference to most.
2) Couldn't they refinance with a lower balance and get lower payments? Might take an extra month. Meh.
What about $10K or less?
About 32%, give or take a point or two.
-
Voted no.
Why is a student loan any more deserving than car loans, home loans, business loans, credit car loans etc?
I guess I'm of the view that if you promised to pay someone back you should.
I'm also against executive action but I guess the ship has sailed on that. I kind of wish the republicans controlled the Congress right now so they could pass a slew of laws getting back much of the control Congress gave to the Presidency before Biden gets in (and for future presidents).
So, you think we should get rid of bankruptcy too?
No, I think we should have bankruptcy, make it available to students and have loans underwritten by banks rather than the government.
I also think bankruptcy should remain on record for a long time, perhaps forever.
-
Why not just allow students to declare bankruptcy?
My concern with the student loan forgiveness is that it doesn't address the underlying problem - people taking out loans they can't afford and inflating the cost of school. I think allowing bankruptcy would go further towards fixing both problems. Or am I missing something?
Back in the seventies there were so many students abusing the system by graduating, immediately declaring bankruptcy to get their loans forgiven, and then -- after sticking it to the taxpayers who funded those loans -- carried on as if they had done nothing wrong.
I'm not talking about some edge case where someone got injured and couldn't work, so they went bankrupt.
I'm talking about people who graduated and intentionally refused to get a job for a few months so they could declare bankruptcy, then went out and got a job with no more student loans.
THAT'S why it's hard to get student loans dropped in bankruptcy proceedings. Because the greedy dicks who did this screwed it up for everyone else. Wonder how many of them are now old, wealthy, white, Trump supporters who yammer about those minorities and immigrants always wanting handouts?
Is this not the exact same result as 'loan forgiveness' though?
-
Why not just allow students to declare bankruptcy?
My concern with the student loan forgiveness is that it doesn't address the underlying problem - people taking out loans they can't afford and inflating the cost of school. I think allowing bankruptcy would go further towards fixing both problems. Or am I missing something?
Back in the seventies there were so many students abusing the system by graduating, immediately declaring bankruptcy to get their loans forgiven, and then -- after sticking it to the taxpayers who funded those loans -- carried on as if they had done nothing wrong.
I'm not talking about some edge case where someone got injured and couldn't work, so they went bankrupt.
I'm talking about people who graduated and intentionally refused to get a job for a few months so they could declare bankruptcy, then went out and got a job with no more student loans.
THAT'S why it's hard to get student loans dropped in bankruptcy proceedings. Because the greedy dicks who did this screwed it up for everyone else. Wonder how many of them are now old, wealthy, white, Trump supporters who yammer about those minorities and immigrants always wanting handouts?
Is this not the exact same result as 'loan forgiveness' though?
Two big differences:
1) Loan forgiveness is an intentional choice by the government that is owed the money, not a scam by the person who owes the money.
2) Tuition and fees were proportionally WAY WAY WAY lower than they are now in many jurisdictions because the public supported generous funding to the public college system. That's been cut back (or eaten up by crazy-high administrative or gratuitous building costs) so the relative amounts are higher.
-
I seriously did not know anyone with student loans in the 70s when I actually went to college. Maybe if you went to a fancy private school, and yes if you went to med school or law school. But state university were supported by state taxes.
-
I started college in 2007, just before the recession. I had no finance classes in high school, and was fed the story "just go to college, when you get out you'll be making so much money the loans won't matter". College was in large part an escape from a severely abusive and unhealthy household. I just signed the papers as they were put in front of me, trusting I was doing the right thing.
Fast forward to 2015 when I finally left school. Turns out many of my loans were around 12-15% interest and had been compounding for as long as 8 years. I'm still digging myself out of that hole, putting ~70% of my earnings against it every year.
So, I have skin in the game.
While I'd be accepting of a flat "forgiveness", I understand that would rub many people the wrong way. I'm more in favor of a smaller sum forgiven plus a much expanded public service forgiveness ($xxxxx per year working in some kind of public service) to give people an incentive to "work" it off.
-
My vote is no.
Tuition is getting higher and the loan burdens are getting worse, but this is NOT A SECRET and I no longer believe anyone who categorically says "nobody told me" that loans would be a burden. Student loan horror stories have been around for a decades already, and every high school student has heard that (1) some people say that college is a good investment (which it certainly can be) and (2) people who say "go to the state school, avoid loans and get an employable skill". In my area trade schools are not overlooked and most high schools have strong connections to both the trade schools and the college-prep pipeline. But people choose to only hear what they want to hear.
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
-
My vote is no.
Tuition is getting higher and the loan burdens are getting worse, but this is NOT A SECRET and I no longer believe anyone who categorically says "nobody told me" that loans would be a burden. Student loan horror stories have been around for a decades already, and every high school student has heard that (1) some people say that college is a good investment (which it certainly can be) and (2) people who say "go to the state school, avoid loans and get an employable skill". In my area trade schools are not overlooked and most high schools have strong connections to both the trade schools and the college-prep pipeline. But people choose to only hear what they want to hear.
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I agree with the first part. The bolded part however is questionable. When my dad attended the state school in the mid 70s it took ~500 hours of minimum wage work to pay for three quarters. That is just over 30 hours a week for the 16 week summer term. Working for the summer and living at home made paying tution for the next year possible. Work full time and you even had some beer money left over. Sure, you'd probably have to work a little during the year to pay rent and stuff, but still doable.
That same exact state school now requires 2100 hours of minimum wage work to pay for two semesters. That's 18-19 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 16 straight weeks.
Yes, there are ways to reduce the cost (community college, AP, dual enrollment, etc). But state school tuition has vastly outpaced wages. And at the same time, so many people have bought into the idea that college is a requirement that even jobs that don't really "need" a college degree have so many people applying for them with degrees that in order to be competitive you really do need some kind of degree.
-
No.
Unless part of it is the federal government getting out of the business of guaranteeing loans, this is just kicking the can down the road.
The problem is that universities have no incentive to make costs competitive, because Uncle Sam backs an unlimited fountain of money. If there's a plan to unsecure student loans in the future? Then I'm a little more ok with this idea. But frankly, the idea that the federal government should 1) back and 2) payoff nearly no risk loans to lenders is... problematic.
There's just no incentive for higher education to adjust pricing when nearly none of the risk is carried by them (or even lenders). And that is the problem.
I would significantly prefer this program to be done via some sort of universally applied tax credit too. It seems a bit silly to me to arbitrarily subsidize a small percentage of the population.
A lot of people forget that while student loans are a big deal to a lot of people, the vast majority of American adults do not have student loans. Not even 50% of millennials do.
It seems a heck of a lot better for us as a society to not decide that subset of the population deserves so much money while other people don't. There is a large, forgotten demographic in mainstream American politics, and it's a demographic that imo needs a lot more of this $1T or whatever the total cost would end up being.
-
My vote is no.
Tuition is getting higher and the loan burdens are getting worse, but this is NOT A SECRET and I no longer believe anyone who categorically says "nobody told me" that loans would be a burden. Student loan horror stories have been around for a decades already, and every high school student has heard that (1) some people say that college is a good investment (which it certainly can be) and (2) people who say "go to the state school, avoid loans and get an employable skill". In my area trade schools are not overlooked and most high schools have strong connections to both the trade schools and the college-prep pipeline. But people choose to only hear what they want to hear.
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I agree with the first part. The bolded part however is questionable. When my dad attended the state school in the mid 70s it took ~500 hours of minimum wage work to pay for three quarters. That is just over 30 hours a week for the 16 week summer term. Working for the summer and living at home made paying tution for the next year possible. Work full time and you even had some beer money left over. Sure, you'd probably have to work a little during the year to pay rent and stuff, but still doable.
.
I agree Sugaree. We live near a pretty cheap college town. My husband teaches at a second tier state school that caters to non-traditional and commuting students, so exactly the type of students centwise is talking about.
But even in the cheap college town tuition has doubled in 15 years while minimum wage has only gone up by $1.30. Rents are still low (about half of what I paid 15 years ago at my HCOL undergrad). But at $4-500 for a room in a shared apartment or house, a student with no outside support would need to work about 20 hours a week to cover food and housing, and that doesn't even touch tuition.
My husband's college has a food pantry located in the building to support students. He regularly has students who have to miss class because of scheduled work shifts. A 4 year U (even one that caters to "non-traditional" students) just doesn't work well when you have to work full time to make it happen.
Which is exactly why people take out loans, so that they can focus on their studies and actually complete the degree.
-
This is insanity.
I can't believe how many people are in favor of student loan forgiveness.
This is giving millions of people a free pass to live well beyond their means while in college.
These loans pay for fancy apartments, fancy clothes/electronics, eating out 3 meals/day, not having to work, sleeping in every day, skipping class, partying every night.
I saw most of my friends take out the maximum in student loans simply to pay for their carefree lifestyles...and several didn't even graduate!
The large state school in my Midwestern town has two satellite campuses.
Total tuition is $6000 per YEAR.
-
My gut is that I don't like the idea because it's unfair to those who worked hard and paid their loans off. However...I'd guess that the vast majority of those with student loans would be willing to work hard to do the same, but something just didn't work out for them along the way. I have a "worthless" social science degree, but I managed to get into software development. It's easy for me to sit high on my horse, when I could just as easily have ended up in the trenches right now, struggling to pay off the debt I had with, say, a minimum wage job....
I guess more important is just that people need A WAY OUT. The current system doesn't allow this. And sure, I get that doctors and lawyers were filing bankruptcy back in the day just to get those pesky loans of their backs, but for most people that didn't make any sense. I think that bankruptcy should clear student loans. I've heard it's a gut-wrenching process, but for some, there's simply no other option. It does trash your credit for, was it 7 years? Or 10? I don't know. But it would be a way out. Revocation of licenses to practice might discourage the whole doctor/lawyer issue, but would work out well for those who only made it half way. I mean, if you never became a full doctor or lawyer, you don't exactly have a license to practice anyway, know what I'm saying?
Just ramblings. I'm sure there are other options, too, but we also have to make sure we aren't encouraging schools to simply charge more at the same time. Of course, if Uncle Sam wants to forgive $50k but wants to pass me $10k for paying my loans off, hey I'll take that ;-)
-
This is terrible policy because it somehow manages to be both too broad and too narrow.
It provides "relief" to all debtors regardless of need or merit.
It excludes the majority of Americans who chose not to study past high school.
I like my social programs very broad (universal or nearly so), or very targeted. This is neither, so it's a hard pass for me. It's not like there aren't forgiveness programs already out there, focus on those.
+1
I would be in favor of a modification that turned student loans into an equity position: a percentage of future earnings of the student for some time. There would need to be some accommodation for earnings potential, but I think true transparency and accountability in education won't happen until the colleges feel it, too.
My wife was talking to a friend yesterday, who has a daughter going to Texas A&M. My wife has a lot of Aggie logo things, and wanted to pass it on to someone who would value it. The friend talked about how expensive school is, and how excited her daughter is. She started listing off the things she liked at her dorm: individual bedrooms, private bathrooms, movie room, etc. My wife lost it when the list got to *LAZY RIVER.* There is price inflation related to reduced state support, increased spending on R&D, etc. which might be justifiable. But there is a portion that also goes to coddling. Whether this is the whole "everyone gets a trophy" mentality, or the schools trying to add some flash to justify the sky-high tuition, it's entirely unnecessary. It demonstrates that there is a bubble.
It also keeps people from resetting their expectations--no "broke college student" days, filled with Ramen Noodles, Taco Bell, and a hot plate in the dorm room. Things keep on just like they were at home, with Mom and Dad in their peak earning years. I think it's an opportunity missed for people to counter the hedonic treadmill.
-
I agree Sugaree. We live near a pretty cheap college town. My husband teaches at a second tier state school that caters to non-traditional and commuting students, so exactly the type of students centwise is talking about.
But even in the cheap college town tuition has doubled in 15 years while minimum wage has only gone up by $1.30.
A 4 year U (even one that caters to "non-traditional" students) just doesn't work well when you have to work full time to make it happen.
Which is exactly why people take out loans, so that they can focus on their studies and actually complete the degree.
How much is the annual tuition at the "second tier state school that caters to commuting students"?
I just posted about tuition at a top-tier state school satellite campus being only $6K/year.
And why do you assume students have to work a minimum wage job or work full-time?
There are lots of jobs that pay more than minimum wage AND don't interfere with class schedules.
I worked as a server/bartender and took home a big wad of cash nearly every shift and never missed a class because of the job.
And there is a lot of time when school is not in session (summers, spring break, winter break) that you can work full-time.
Also, the vast majority of students do not have to get an apartment while in school.
Most can continue living with parents/family, attend the local community college/satellite school, and not have to pay rent.
-
This is giving millions of people a free pass to live well beyond their means while in college.
These loans pay for fancy apartments, fancy clothes/electronics, eating out 3 meals/day, not having to work, sleeping in every day, skipping class, partying every night.
I saw most of my friends take out the maximum in student loans simply to pay for their carefree lifestyles...and several didn't even graduate!
The large state school in my Midwestern town has two satellite campuses.
Total tuition is $6000 per YEAR.
Tuition is only part of the cost. There are Fees which can cost another 20%. Books are not cheap.
4 Years * (6000 Tuition + 1400 Fees + 1600 Books + $9000 living expenses) = $72,000. That's hardly a luxury lifestyle.
$10,000 in loan forgiveness would free about 33% of those with student loans.
$50,000 in loan forgiveness would free about 82% if I remember correctly.
Take out the doctors and lawyers out of the remaining 18% and you're left with the folks you're talking about and some outliers getting PhDs without fellowships.
A $50,000 loan forgiveness would cover most of the essential expenses and those who racked up huge student loans on top of that will still be stuck paying for those luxuries. So what's your beef with that?
-
The state university where dh teaches has a fair number of homeless students, and a food pantry.
-
I agree Sugaree. We live near a pretty cheap college town. My husband teaches at a second tier state school that caters to non-traditional and commuting students, so exactly the type of students centwise is talking about.
But even in the cheap college town tuition has doubled in 15 years while minimum wage has only gone up by $1.30.
A 4 year U (even one that caters to "non-traditional" students) just doesn't work well when you have to work full time to make it happen.
Which is exactly why people take out loans, so that they can focus on their studies and actually complete the degree.
How much is the annual tuition at the "second tier state school that caters to commuting students"?
I just posted about tuition at a top-tier state school satellite campus being only $6K/year.
And why do you assume students have to work a minimum wage job or work full-time?
There are lots of jobs that pay more than minimum wage AND don't interfere with class schedules.
I worked as a server/bartender and took home a big wad of cash nearly every shift and never missed a class because of the job.
And there is a lot of time when school is not in session (summers, spring break, winter break) that you can work full-time.
Also, the vast majority of students do not have to get an apartment while in school.
Most can continue living with parents/family, attend the local community college/satellite school, and not have to pay rent.
Approximately 11k a year, including fees. Which obviously isn't horrible but it ain't cheap.
I assume minimum wage because I live in the rustbelt and the school is located in a pretty rural area, and the job market isn't thriving here. I assume working and renting because that seems to be a very typical situation for my husband's students.
I think it is a very middle class thing to be able to live with your parents rent free while you go to school? I grew up in a very blue collar area and for the few that went to college they were still expected to contribute to the household expenses as soon as they graduated from high school. Heck, my parents are awesome and paid some money towards my bachelor's degree but still expected me to pay rent if I came home in the summer.
Don't get me wrong - a good state school is an absolute bargain if you can get in. Our flagship U is only like 13k a year in-state. My husband's U is a bargain if you have a sold middle class income. But in-state acceptance rates are dropping at the best state schools because state funding for schools drops year over year and they need money so they take more out-of-state students.
University costs are obviously regionally dependent as well. States with strong university systems seem to have better deals.
I went to a private school, mostly on scholarship, in a HCOL city and could barely pay living expenses w/ two jobs in the summer and working during the school year. I was determined not to take out loans in undergrad. I was a less competitive student because I had to work so much.
I don't begrudge people making the best choices they think they can make when they are 18 years old. I think most people are hard workers. I don't mind wiping the slate clean on this ridiculous student loan experiment of the last 25 years and starting over (even if that means cutting some slackers a break they don't deserve.) I think it will help more hardworking young people than fund the "undeserving".
-
Do we want governments to encourage everyone to go to college?
Why favor those folks vs say trades folks?
-
How about a $10000 gift to anyone who's graduated from college in the last 30 years?
If your parents raided their 401k to do it, you could pay them back.
If you worked in school minimum wage jobs and ate ramen noodles to pay off your loan, you could fund your 401k.
If you didn't pay off your loan yet, you could use it for that.
-
How about a $10000 gift to anyone who's graduated from college in the last 30 years?
If your parents raided their 401k to do it, you could pay them back.
If you worked in school minimum wage jobs and ate ramen noodles to pay off your loan, you could fund your 401k.
If you didn't pay off your loan yet, you could use it for that.
So, continue to uphold privilege to keep the divide between people? Sure. The rich who can afford college already, become richer. The poor and middle class stay the same, but their daily costs go up due to everyone getting 10k. Brilliant idea......
-
And don't y'all think Schumer is throwing out the 50k number so that Joe can do the 10k as a compromise?
Per Brookings: 10k forgiveness "could eliminate debt for the 15 million borrowers with smaller balances who, paradoxically, tend to struggle most, accounting for about 60 percent of all defaults."
I'd love to see 50k forgiveness plus a reworking of the higher ed funding in the US. But 10k would help a lot of people.
-
My gut is that I don't like the idea because it's unfair to those who worked hard and paid their loans off. However...I'd guess that the vast majority of those with student loans would be willing to work hard to do the same, but something just didn't work out for them along the way. I have a "worthless" social science degree, but I managed to get into software development. It's easy for me to sit high on my horse, when I could just as easily have ended up in the trenches right now, struggling to pay off the debt I had with, say, a minimum wage job....
I guess more important is just that people need A WAY OUT. The current system doesn't allow this. And sure, I get that doctors and lawyers were filing bankruptcy back in the day just to get those pesky loans of their backs, but for most people that didn't make any sense. I think that bankruptcy should clear student loans. I've heard it's a gut-wrenching process, but for some, there's simply no other option. It does trash your credit for, was it 7 years? Or 10? I don't know. But it would be a way out. Revocation of licenses to practice might discourage the whole doctor/lawyer issue, but would work out well for those who only made it half way. I mean, if you never became a full doctor or lawyer, you don't exactly have a license to practice anyway, know what I'm saying?
I favor this idea of allowing Student Loan Debt to be discharged in Bankruptcy. I would also favor a "clawback" provision where the schools who provided worthless degrees to their students or accepted a borderline student just for the loan money would be charged 50% of the discharged debt by the US government (and it they don't pay, they are no longer eligible for loans). Both students AND universities need to have "skin in the game".
JGS
-
35% of jobs require a bachelors degree today. Why do we charge for secondary education at all? It always seemed like something that was done mostly to increase class separation and inequality.
-
How about a $10000 gift to anyone who's graduated from college in the last 30 years?
If your parents raided their 401k to do it, you could pay them back.
If you worked in school minimum wage jobs and ate ramen noodles to pay off your loan, you could fund your 401k.
If you didn't pay off your loan yet, you could use it for that.
Why stop at 10k? If we're shoveling free helicopter $ to everyone who has ever gone to college, lets just call it an even $100k. Folks will really love biden and the dems. Could even usher in a 2nd term for mr biden.
-
35% of jobs require a bachelors degree today. Why do we charge for secondary education at all? It always seemed like something that was done mostly to increase class separation and inequality.
Definitely, almost everything done in the US is in service of increasing inequality and if you dare try to do something to decrease it you get called a socialist, a pinkie commie, etc.
It doesn't cost much to provide a free public college education and since the US is a sovereign currency issuer there shouldn't be a problem unless you can prove to me that doing so will cause excessive overall inflation.
It's a matter of priorities: We pay billions in subsidies for big corporations, a good% of the defense budget is unnecessary, e.g.
-
Loan forgiveness would just give the universities license to expand their administrative staff and executive salaries even more, because students will pay more, because they are betting the government will forgive their loans.
I also think the government should (slowly) get out of subsidizing the housing market. These efforts have NOT improved affordability as originally thought. They have only raised prices and house sizes by making financing cheaper than what the market equilibrium would be.
All the affordability crises we see today (housing, education, medical care) are tied to government loan guarantees or subsidies interacting with a profit-driven private market. The net result has been a disaster for consumers. Problem is, now all these areas have huge industries and lobbies built around collecting rents from the population.
-
I agree Sugaree. We live near a pretty cheap college town. My husband teaches at a second tier state school that caters to non-traditional and commuting students, so exactly the type of students centwise is talking about.
But even in the cheap college town tuition has doubled in 15 years while minimum wage has only gone up by $1.30.
A 4 year U (even one that caters to "non-traditional" students) just doesn't work well when you have to work full time to make it happen.
Which is exactly why people take out loans, so that they can focus on their studies and actually complete the degree.
How much is the annual tuition at the "second tier state school that caters to commuting students"?
I just posted about tuition at a top-tier state school satellite campus being only $6K/year.
And why do you assume students have to work a minimum wage job or work full-time?
There are lots of jobs that pay more than minimum wage AND don't interfere with class schedules.
I worked as a server/bartender and took home a big wad of cash nearly every shift and never missed a class because of the job.
And there is a lot of time when school is not in session (summers, spring break, winter break) that you can work full-time.
Also, the vast majority of students do not have to get an apartment while in school.
Most can continue living with parents/family, attend the local community college/satellite school, and not have to pay rent.
Tuition for "full time" (12 hours) is $7800 + $700 university fees (gotta pay for that new student rec center with climbing wall and Starbucks) + $50 course fees = $8550 not counting books and living expenses.
That's 24 hours a year. In order to graduate, my degree program required 120 hours. Unless you took 15 hours a semester or 6 hours every summer, it would take 5 years.
-
Loan forgiveness would just give the universities license to expand their administrative staff and executive salaries even more, because students will pay more, because they are betting the government will forgive their loans.
I also think the government should (slowly) get out of subsidizing the housing market. These efforts have NOT improved affordability as originally thought. They have only raised prices and house sizes by making financing cheaper than what the market equilibrium would be.
All the affordability crises we see today (housing, education, medical care) are tied to government loan guarantees or subsidies interacting with a profit-driven private market. The net result has been a disaster for consumers. Problem is, now all these areas have huge industries and lobbies built around collecting rents from the population.
This is why forgiveness has to come with meaningful reform. Whether that's a reduction in the limits on federal loans, or limits on private loans, or making private loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, or limiting tuition hikes to inflation, or something else.
-
For those suggesting larger reforms or handing out 50k to everyone, how do yo do that while bypassing congress? The point of doing it this way is that you don't need McConnell to bring up a bill for a vote in the senate.
-
Tuition is only part of the cost. There are Fees which can cost another 20%. Books are not cheap.
4 Years * (6000 Tuition + 1400 Fees + 1600 Books + $9000 living expenses) = $72,000. That's hardly a luxury lifestyle.
Making up numbers does not help prove your point.
- The $6000 tuition I quoted includes ALL fees, so the made up $1400 "fees" goes away.
- $1600/year for books for a standard undergrad degree? You are out of your mind.
- $9000 in "living expenses" is not a college expense. It can and should easily be covered by working a part-time job. You would have this expense regardless of whether you are in college or not.
A $50,000 loan forgiveness would cover most of the essential expenses and those who racked up huge student loans on top of that will still be stuck paying for those luxuries. So what's your beef with that?
I have several beefs...
1) It penalizes the very people and behaviors that should be encouraged.
Those who make wise financial decisions, live below their means, and work through college get shafted because they didn't take money from the government.
2) It rewards poor decision making, laziness, and government dependence...by forgiving loan debt people choose to accumulate.
3) It screws over people who chose to go to technical/trade school instead of taking out government loans to go to college.
Student X:
Goes to a cheap community college before transferring to a local state college, lives at home/rents a room while, eats meals at home, works part-time during school year and full-time in the summer.
Proudly graduates with ZERO student loans.
Student Z:
Picks a fancy out-of-state school, lives in a fancy house, parties & eats out every day, never worked a day in their lives.
Ends up flunking out of school after racking up $50K in government loans.
Gets rewarded with a free $50K gift from Uncle Sam, paid for in part by Student X!
If you want to hand out piles of money, then it should be done with some semblance of fairness.
-
My vote is no.
Tuition is getting higher and the loan burdens are getting worse, but this is NOT A SECRET and I no longer believe anyone who categorically says "nobody told me" that loans would be a burden. Student loan horror stories have been around for a decades already, and every high school student has heard that (1) some people say that college is a good investment (which it certainly can be) and (2) people who say "go to the state school, avoid loans and get an employable skill". In my area trade schools are not overlooked and most high schools have strong connections to both the trade schools and the college-prep pipeline. But people choose to only hear what they want to hear.
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I agree with the first part. The bolded part however is questionable. When my dad attended the state school in the mid 70s it took ~500 hours of minimum wage work to pay for three quarters. That is just over 30 hours a week for the 16 week summer term. Working for the summer and living at home made paying tution for the next year possible. Work full time and you even had some beer money left over. Sure, you'd probably have to work a little during the year to pay rent and stuff, but still doable.
.
I agree Sugaree. We live near a pretty cheap college town. My husband teaches at a second tier state school that caters to non-traditional and commuting students, so exactly the type of students centwise is talking about.
But even in the cheap college town tuition has doubled in 15 years while minimum wage has only gone up by $1.30. Rents are still low (about half of what I paid 15 years ago at my HCOL undergrad). But at $4-500 for a room in a shared apartment or house, a student with no outside support would need to work about 20 hours a week to cover food and housing, and that doesn't even touch tuition.
My husband's college has a food pantry located in the building to support students. He regularly has students who have to miss class because of scheduled work shifts. A 4 year U (even one that caters to "non-traditional" students) just doesn't work well when you have to work full time to make it happen.
Which is exactly why people take out loans, so that they can focus on their studies and actually complete the degree.
Just pointing out that I said you don't need to take out "ridiculous loans"; I never said "no loans at all". I said that frugal mustachian-type students would be paying off their own modest loans; and it is certainly possible to fund a college degree with modest loans and part-time work. And students who take out reasonable loans can and should pay them off.
-
I do support loan forgiveness at some level but think the whole system needs an overhaul.
I received a 4 year degree and while I enjoyed a lot of the classes not related to my major my goal for attending college was to get the degree. If there was a way to take only those classes related to my major and gotten a degree in 2 years instead of 4 I would have.
Some things I would like to see are:
Federal student loans to have a low interest rate of no more than 1% above the Tbill rate.
Reframe PSLF to where it applies to all borrowers, has a cap amount forgiven at the end of the term, keeps same terms (interest rate, pmt formula) for the remaining amount.
Accelerated degree type programs where you don't need all the general education classes to obtain a bachelors degree.
Tuition free community college
Changing the mindset at the highschool level and encourage most students to go to community college first and then a 4 year
-
I generally am not a fan of modifying deals after the fact. Millions of people have made billions of financial decisions based on the incentive structure imposed by the student loan system as it exists. Each person has needed to decide how to allocate their money, either to loan payments or to other things that seemed like a bigger priority at the time. To forgive the loans after the fact changes all of these tradeoffs after the resulting decisions have been made. People who are more debt-averse and aggressively paid off their loans will be made worse off than similarly situated people who instead decided to prioritize other uses for that money and therefore still carry a student loan balance. This seems like a nonsensical outcome.
-
I would prefer that everyone was automatically put on income-based repayment plan (10% of income minus some percentage of poverty line) and the remaining balance forgiven after 20 years. Alternatively I feel like putting an income limit on the $10k forgiveness might get rid of some of the negative feelings about it.
-
Personally, in favor of it. I went to acupuncture school. They made it seem like we will easily make 6 figures. I know very, very few of my colleagues making this a few years into this profession, some have quit completely. School cost $160k all said and done (housing costs went up a ton where I was living over the 12 semesters of graduate level study - I did this in 4 years). There are almost no scholarships for acupuncture school (I did get one, that was $1k). I went to a just under mid priced school. I applied for thousands of jobs in the time I lived in that city, the only ones I got were minimum wage, and I couldn't work full-time.
I am hustling my butt off at personal risk and due to that, am taking jobs others wouldn't due to feeling unsafe. I am happy to do this so far, providing care is important to me, and I work at a combo of affordable clinics and inner city clinics where it's pretty much unheard of to have an acupuncturist (accident/injury type ones, they aren't paying out of pocket). I am now enroute to make $50k this year at least if not more (hard to say, some stuff is compensation based and shut downs have started here again). This is a massive income jump for me compared to the last few years.
I also used to be a musician full-time. I went to school on full scholarship, but I don't think people should be blamed for a hard sell (I know A LOT of people who went to the expensive conservatories, and DID end up with jobs). People I knew were hustling how they could, and paying their bills, not dipping out. So few people are working right now. I'm so grateful I play an instrument it's possible to play outside all year long. An entire industry is shut down. There are plenty of other fields that have been shut down. $50k to be honest is a drop in the bucket for a lot of these educated folks that have a lot to add to our culture. How come big biz can get it but not other fields like medicine (especially the lower paying fields), arts, music, education?
I also don't understand this idea of students are using their loans for iphones/expensive eating out and stuff. This was not what I observed in school except in acupuncture school for those students who were paying out of pocket/had a lot of cash from previous careers. If anything people were living on nothing in order to save up for: 1. Music school: audition fees/travel expenses, instruments, music, other supplies) 2. Acupuncture school: board exam fees, licensing fees/certifications, clinic start up supplies.
I will admit full disclosure- I lived VERY frugally during acupuncture school, saved my work-study money and side music gig money to the tune of $9k, travelled for a year in between. But I did some volunteering programs in acupuncture during that time, as well as some long hikes, lost 35lbs, got in physical/mental shape I was ready to really treat people. When I moved back to civilization I was immediately offered work due to having some experience. Very few "jobs" in acupuncture (tho this is changing!)- and almost all want experience, but how do you get it? Have to start your own clinic, get lucky with knowing someone, or do something like what I did.
I also would be happy to support some program where the forgiveness is not taxable or minimally taxable at the end, or to expand PSLF to other medical fields like mine that are not currently included. also to give partial forgiveness if there is not full-time work available (in my fields it's not, I know that's an issue with a lot of my peers, yes, even teachers in public schools. Arts/music is quite often not full-time and no/few benefits).
-
I'm in favor of discharging student debt with the caveat that the system needs to be changed for future students accordingly. I like the idea of free community college or something like that but I'm not a policy person.
-
hi @dizzy! Former fellow conservatory kid here and I love seeing musicians on these boards. Musicians get the hustle!
And yes my entire cohort from grad school can't do their jobs right now because of the pandemic. And these are the people that made it through the '09 recession w/ music careers and gigs still intact. I wish these folks who bring such joy and beauty into so many lives could catch a break (like student loan forgiveness :) .
-
Yes, let's forgive student loans, auto loans, mortgages, credit card debt and all types of personal loans that people agreed to sign up to. We can just make other people who have nothing to do with it, pay for it. Brilliant, but I'm voting no.
-
I would much rather see something more universal like a UBI or one time stimulus check than something that benefits only a select group of people. It seems unfair that people who paid off their loans early, never took out loans, or never went to college would get nothing.
I voted yes on the poll, but I agree with this. I'm a huge fan of UBI.
-
I would much rather see something more universal like a UBI or one time stimulus check than something that benefits only a select group of people. It seems unfair that people who paid off their loans early, never took out loans, or never went to college would get nothing.
Someone ran into my parked car and got away. The police didn't find them.
I think it's unfair the police caught someone else who ran into someone else's car. Why should those people get justice when I didn't?
That would be sarcasm.
-
I'm in favor of discharging student debt with the caveat that the system needs to be changed for future students accordingly. I like the idea of free community college or something like that but I'm not a policy person.
Yeah, I'm sure I'm biased because I paid off my loans to a private school the hard way but my main concern is moral hazard. I have a buddy who to the same private school in the midwest and is now in LA to be in the movie industry writing. Like yeah, go ahead and live your life but the whole mentality is that he didn't make a mistake getting an overpriced degree and that he should be able to follow his dreams. The guy worked in the back at Walgreens and was making his way up making decent money, but wanted to follow his passion. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
If you are going to private/for-profit schools, there needs to be stronger regulation on how you can get loans based on your ability to pay them back. Should also have stricter benchmarks of you needing to show progress on the degree.
I would fully support free community schools/public universities for STEM and trade, but there is no reason people should be spending money they don't have for jobs that won't get the ROI.
-
I would much rather see something more universal like a UBI or one time stimulus check than something that benefits only a select group of people. It seems unfair that people who paid off their loans early, never took out loans, or never went to college would get nothing.
Someone ran into my parked car and got away. The police didn't find them.
I think it's unfair the police caught someone else who ran into someone else's car. Why should those people get justice when I didn't?
That would be sarcasm.
Hrm... it's more like you ran into a parked car and got caught, and now you want everyone who ran into a parked car and hasn't yet paid to get a reprieve, but you don't want the people who hit parked cars and paid their fines to get a refund.
-
I think we should have loan forgiveness for auto loans, everyone needs one to get to work, it would be good for the economy. Also, mortgages, we all need a roof over our heads, it would relieve a big burden from individuals. Maybe even his and hers mortgage forgiveness, this would help reduce the divorce rate. /sarc/
btw, I voted no. :-)
-
So much silver spoon privilege in this thread. And they are all so blind to it.
-
So much silver spoon privilege in this thread. And they are all so blind to it.
I am definitely curious about the socioeconomic backgrounds of the "no forgiveness" folks. Really, of everyone. Like what childhood/education combo goes into creating one's opinion on this issue.
-
Fuck no.
-
Do we want governments to encourage everyone to go to college?
Why favor those folks vs say trades folks?
Trades also very often require further education. My nephew studied diesel truck mechanics at a trade school. Plumbers, electricians, etc. often go to trade school.
They aren't free, and not cheap either!
-
So much silver spoon privilege in this thread. And they are all so blind to it.
I am definitely curious about the socioeconomic backgrounds of the "no forgiveness" folks. Really, of everyone. Like what childhood/education combo goes into creating one's opinion on this issue.
It's a combo...
For some, it's "I worked hard and succeeded and paid off my loans doing X, Y, and Z, so anyone can do it!"
For others, "they were stupid and should pay", not recognizing their privilege.
I grew up poor, my parents divorced when I was in HS. My dad was out of the picture and retired, my mom made $9000 a year. I got scholarships, grants, and loans. My mother was a BANKER and we had a hard time keeping track of all the loan documents. It's not easy to figure out at 17.
My "family contribution" was $1800 a year because my dad refused to fill out any paperwork. I worked during most semesters and every summer (sometimes 2 jobs/ 60 hrs a week). In the end, I joined ROTC and they paid for 3 years of tuition/books - but I was still on the hook for room and board.
Still, with all that work, I owed money on loans, and I buckled down and paid them off in 4 years (int rates 8-10%).
BUT, not everyone can do that. I was smart, healthy, straight, and fit - so able to get scholarships and join ROTC (this was before even don't ask/don't tell). My mom would send me care packages of ramen noodles. Even on the 4 hours of sleep I got with work and school and ROTC, I was functional, though my grades suffered.
Many of my classmates were even poorer. No running water. Some classmates flunked out - the university drop out rate was 30+ %. Lots of $$, no degree.
Plenty of people get scammed by for profit colleges. Plenty of people don't even know how to do the math. The reality is, college is only affordable for some. You want to be a veterinarian? You better have a college fund - you will NEVER made enough $$ to pay off your loans. The lower middle class folks are at high risk. Hindsight is 20/20.
-
The Grand Theory of Privilege has been invoked. Everyone who voted "no" is now on notice that they are wrong and should immediately befriend more debtors to personally apologize to. No more discussion is permissible.
-
The whole idea of student loans is ridiculous. I had an amount of student loans that would compound to 100K right now if you just assume 4% interest per year. I could damn sure use 100K right now, who couldn't? Not to brag but I went to an elite university and there's just no way I would have been able to afford to graduate without student loans without working full time and likely seeing my grades suffer (not to mention wouldn't have been able to participate in important extracurriculars). It was worth it financially in the end, but still I'm 100K behind a privileged version of me.
So unless you are wealthy enough you either suck it up and take out loans or kill yourself working full time while your grades and extracurriculars suffer, and then later your admissions to grad school or qualifications for jobs suffer b/c you missed the GPA cutoff. Or join the military (don't even get me started with that asinine idea) or go for the absolute cheapest school available (and therefore miss out on the higher quality education, connections, and employment opportunities that would've awaited you at a better university).
A recipe for perpetuating income and wealth inequality. Fucking obvious we should just use the power of the sovereign currency to make sure nobody has to take out student loans. That is if we give a fuck about increasing social and economic mobility which a large % of sociopathic America does not.
-
The Grand Theory of Privilege has been invoked. Everyone who voted "no" is now on notice that they are wrong and should immediately befriend more debtors to personally apologize to. No more discussion is permissible.
haha.
I wish we could, you know, separate the person taking a position or making an argument, from the argument itself. Alas, due to all of us having some type of privilege we cannot produce any valid arguments or opinions unless we are not privileged with respect to that argument.
So, rich white guys should be ignored on everything. Rich guys ignored on most things. Rich white gals ignored on some things... all the way to poor colored lesbians and transsexuals having their opinions taken as fact and having their arguments go unchallenged.
It would make these threads a lot shorter.
-
The Grand Theory of Privilege has been invoked. Everyone who voted "no" is now on notice that they are wrong and should immediately befriend more debtors to personally apologize to. No more discussion is permissible.
But, the whole conversation is about privilege. If you set aside politically correct "privilege", we are still trying to drill down to the idea of who deserves educational opportunity.
And privilege is part of that conversation.
I think the reason the "Grand Theory" has been invoked" is because some people made comments that feel blind to certain aspects of our culture - just throwing out the idea of living at home to cut expenses assumes that everyone has a supportive family who is willing to cover their living expenses while they pursue their education. So if your family isn't willing are you a sucker for taking out loans?
If you are poor, moderately intelligent, but with no support do you not deserve a chance to aim for a white collar job? Should you only go to trade school (which is still not free)?
Should you have to join the military (thank you Spartana!) and risk your life to become an accountant, a software engineer or a teacher? I had several friends that did that, two didn't come back alive and some are permanently altered.
So who gets access to higher education in our country?
The problem now is that you have a large part of a generation with enough loans that they are not participating in the economy in traditional ways. Which is a perfectly fine outcome if you don't care if they participate.
But the powers that be and our systems expect/want/need this generation to participate. We "need" millennials and GenZs to buy houses, and cars, and have the children that will eventually be our caretakers and our social security - but they aren't doing those things because a large chunk of them have substantial educational debt, and another large chunk of them don't make a living wage. So how do we fix those problems? Loan forgiveness is being floated as a partial possible solution that can happen via executive order (because the chances of legislative solutions are currently slim).
-
(https://preview.redd.it/fkl4i35j4uw31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f74a4791e9835e73fc67b5641899bf50da36e9b)
-
The Grand Theory of Privilege has been invoked. Everyone who voted "no" is now on notice that they are wrong and should immediately befriend more debtors to personally apologize to. No more discussion is permissible.
Haha, I was actually going to post something similar, saying everyone who voted no is either a trump supporter, a sexist, a racist, transphobe and of course white privileged.
-
Agree with @Paul der Krake that the privilege talk is mostly unhelpful here. I acknowledge having a ton of privilege in my life. I agree that education is more expensive than it should be, that this cost has been burdening our young people too much over the past few decades, and that a return to our 1960s-ish policy of subsidizing most of the cost of a public university education would probably pay dividends to our economy going forward.
Where I get hung up on student loan forgiveness, as I alluded to above, is this:
Suppose Alice and Bob both got the same overpriced degree from the same overpriced state school three years ago. Suppose their financial position at graduation is identical: $30k of student loan debt, no assets to speak of. They both get entry-level positions at the same company, making the same salary. They both live frugal lives, putting half their salary away toward building their net worth.
Alice decides she would sleep much better at night having that student loan debt gone, so she puts that extra half of her salary toward her debt and pays it off this year. Bob looks at the interest rates and, similar to the "don't pay off your mortgage club" on this forum, decides he might do better investing. Over that same three-year period Bob pays the minimum on his student loans and puts the rest of his extra half of his salary into his 401(k) instead. The stock market has been doing great the past few years, so Bob's net worth is actually higher than Alice's by now.
By singling out current student loan holders we're saying that Bob is more deserving of government help than Alice, even though he's done better overall. We're saying that people who graduated 10 years ago and have struggled mightily to pay off their student loans on schedule (but finally did it this year!) are less deserving of government help than people who graduated last year in the same exact position. I don't buy it. I agree there are a lot of people who had to dig themselves into a big financial hole getting themselves educated enough to participate in the economy, and I disagree that current student loan balance is a very good proxy for how badly someone has been affected by this issue.
-
I wish we could, you know, separate the person taking a position or making an argument, from the argument itself. Alas, due to all of us having some type of privilege we cannot produce any valid arguments or opinions unless we are not privileged with respect to that argument.
So, rich white guys should be ignored on everything. Rich guys ignored on most things. Rich white gals ignored on some things... all the way to poor colored lesbians and transsexuals having their opinions taken as fact and having their arguments go unchallenged.
It would make these threads a lot shorter.
to be fair, a forum where we all strive to retire as early as possible seems pretty hard to find many people who don't have higher levels of privilege...
-
I wish we could, you know, separate the person taking a position or making an argument, from the argument itself. Alas, due to all of us having some type of privilege we cannot produce any valid arguments or opinions unless we are not privileged with respect to that argument.
So, rich white guys should be ignored on everything. Rich guys ignored on most things. Rich white gals ignored on some things... all the way to poor colored lesbians and transsexuals having their opinions taken as fact and having their arguments go unchallenged.
It would make these threads a lot shorter.
to be fair, a forum where we all strive to retire as early as possible seems pretty hard to find many people who don't have higher levels of privilege...
A lot of people are quite blind to it. The phenomenon of people being "born on third base and thinking they hit a triple" is quite real. As an outsider from that world, I see it all the time in this type of public discussion.
-
Agree with @Paul der Krake that the privilege talk is mostly unhelpful here. I acknowledge having a ton of privilege in my life. I agree that education is more expensive than it should be, that this cost has been burdening our young people too much over the past few decades, and that a return to our 1960s-ish policy of subsidizing most of the cost of a public university education would probably pay dividends to our economy going forward.
Where I get hung up on student loan forgiveness, as I alluded to above, is this:
Suppose Alice and Bob both got the same overpriced degree from the same overpriced state school three years ago. Suppose their financial position at graduation is identical: $30k of student loan debt, no assets to speak of. They both get entry-level positions at the same company, making the same salary. They both live frugal lives, putting half their salary away toward building their net worth.
Alice decides she would sleep much better at night having that student loan debt gone, so she puts that extra half of her salary toward her debt and pays it off this year. Bob looks at the interest rates and, similar to the "don't pay off your mortgage club" on this forum, decides he might do better investing. Over that same three-year period Bob pays the minimum on his student loans and puts the rest of his extra half of his salary into his 401(k) instead. The stock market has been doing great the past few years, so Bob's net worth is actually higher than Alice's by now.
By singling out current student loan holders we're saying that Bob is more deserving of government help than Alice, even though he's done better overall. We're saying that people who graduated 10 years ago and have struggled mightily to pay off their student loans on schedule (but finally did it this year!) are less deserving of government help than people who graduated last year in the same exact position. I don't buy it. I agree there are a lot of people who had to dig themselves into a big financial hole getting themselves educated enough to participate in the economy, and I disagree that current student loan balance is a very good proxy for how badly someone has been affected by this issue.
I think that this is a very valid point, and one that's difficult to argue is rooted in privilege.
-
(https://preview.redd.it/fkl4i35j4uw31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f74a4791e9835e73fc67b5641899bf50da36e9b)
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless these people are forcibly being dragged to the train tracks and they do not have the ability to simply decline. I don't see how a lot of people are missing this. This is not a matter of "well I had no other choice", or "I had no idea that I would have to pay this large amount back". It's definitely not the former because nobody is forcing you to sign up for it, and if it's the latter, then other people should not be responsible for your ignorance about the matter.
-
+1 to @seattlecyclone 's comment!
I agree there is a problem, and it needs to be solved. But student loan forgiveness, alone, is a band-aid approach that will reward the underserving (who either squandered their money or their educational opportunity) and punish the deserving, (e.g. Alice, above) in addition to helping a great many deserving people. It may have a role in a broader program of education reform, but if simply applied and forgotten, it will accomplish little.
I am less swayed by the arguments of "those from 10 years ago." If we have to settle accounts in the past, how far back do you go? And to what other inequalities? There does need to be a line drawn, and it won't be entirely fair. Perhaps the $10k cap is an idea for looking back, to minimize the disconnects, but unless it is coupled with a change in the model of higher education, the problem will just build up again and we will forget any progress it had made.
-
(https://preview.redd.it/fkl4i35j4uw31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f74a4791e9835e73fc67b5641899bf50da36e9b)
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless these people are forcibly being dragged to the train tracks and they do not have the ability to simply decline. I don't see how a lot of people are missing this. This is not a matter of "well I had no other choice", or "I had no idea that I would have to pay this large amount back". It's definitely not the former because nobody is forcing you to sign up for it, and if it's the latter, then other people should not be responsible for your ignorance about the matter.
You must have missed the part of the discussion we had where people are forced to get degrees to even be considered for most types of employment.
-
My principal opposition is to the one-time nature of the loan forgiveness. I paid off my student loans too early to benefit from the student loan interest deduction, but I don't oppose that. I don't see how a 10K forgiveness can be made permanent, and even if it were the net effect would be to raise tuition by 10k. There's a supply and demand problem, where people are willing to pay high prices for colleges, prestige, room and board without regard to whether they can afford it and their profession will require it. Schools can keep raising costs and people will keep applying. FWIW, I also went to a prestigious school, took out government loans, and became an actuary. Most people in the profession think my college is odd, to say the least. I tried to set up internships or hiring situations, and was told they would be useless. I also managed to graduate in 3 years, while working a part-time job and participating in extra curriculars that were fun but hardly a benefit much less requirement to either career I pursued. Rich people can afford hobbies, and rich people fit in better with other like them. No government program is going to erase that.
I was talking to a coworker yesterday who has two kids in the local college. She isnt putting enough away for retirement, but felt she "had to" let the kids live in the dorm and get the meal plan. Even the older son, who has an apartment, is on half meal plan because it's too time consuming to make himself a sandwich. But, they are really cash strapped and the kids are taking out big loans. They live closer to the college than my 3 siblings who commuted from home. I mean, that's their choice, but these college loans balloon out of control due to choices people make.
In any case, I think Biden's program is for the federal loans only. I had federal loans of 20K, and I had a large portion (7k? 10k?, someone else can do the math) paid off in the form of interest for the 7 years I was in college and graduate school. This is obviously a sign of privilege as my parents were willing to fill out the FAFSA and is unfair to homeless children and therefore should be abolished. \sarcasm
-
(https://preview.redd.it/fkl4i35j4uw31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f74a4791e9835e73fc67b5641899bf50da36e9b)
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless these people are forcibly being dragged to the train tracks and they do not have the ability to simply decline. I don't see how a lot of people are missing this. This is not a matter of "well I had no other choice", or "I had no idea that I would have to pay this large amount back". It's definitely not the former because nobody is forcing you to sign up for it, and if it's the latter, then other people should not be responsible for your ignorance about the matter.
You must have missed the part of the discussion we had where people are forced to get degrees to even be considered for most types of employment.
So those people do not have the ability to say "well, it looks like this career path is going to put me $100,000 in debt, no thank you"? Someone has a gun to their head and is forcing them to sign up?
Bottom line is, other people who have nothing to do with your student loans should not be forced to pay for it for you. Whoever is so insistent on paying for other people, then do it, nobody is going to stop you if you volunteer your paycheck. This is a problem of understanding why it costs so much in the first place and then fixing the problem, not just sweeping it under the rug and forcing other people to take on the burden.
-
(https://preview.redd.it/fkl4i35j4uw31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f74a4791e9835e73fc67b5641899bf50da36e9b)
Instead of diverting it elsewhere to continually still have to deal with the wild train in the future, I'd rather make the trolley smaller (amount borrowed via secondary personal finance education and more pubic funding for schools) and/or slower (interest rate on non-dischargeable debt tied more to inflation) to begin with. Wouldn't it be nice if the trolley hitting you wasn't fatal to your (financial) health but just something to plan for and mitigate?
-
You must have missed the part of the discussion we had where people are forced to get degrees to even be considered for most types of employment.
The fact that you think people are "forced" to get a 4-year degree to get a decent job is absurd.
This statement is complete garbage for several reasons.
It assumes that one must have a college degree to find gainful employment, which is WRONG.
There are MILLIONS of people, making really good money, that don't have a 4-year degree...
Plumber, welder, carpenter, cabinet maker, electrician, heavy equipment operator, sales of all kinds (real estate, insurance, vehicles, ect.), beautician/hairdresser, dental assistant, factory worker, mechanic.
Lots and lots of people in professions noted above are making more than people with college degrees.
And demand for skilled trades has been increasing significantly over the last decade and continues to rise.
As older people retire from the trades, there aren't enough skilled workers to replace them.
It also assumes you must go into huge debt to get an education, with is also a myth.
Associates degrees, community college, satellite campuses can all be very reasonably priced.
I posted earlier that tuition at the satellite campus of my local top-tier state university is $6/yr, which includes all fees.
You can also join the National Guard, Reserves, military branch and go to college for free.
-
It assumes that one must have a college degree to find gainful employment, which is WRONG.
There are MILLIONS of people, making really good money, that don't have a 4-year degree...
Plumber, welder, carpenter, cabinet maker, electrician, heavy equipment operator, sales of all kinds (real estate, insurance, vehicles, ect.), beautician/hairdresser, dental assistant, factory worker, mechanic.
You can also join the National Guard, Reserves, military branch and go to college for free.
Well for one, I wouldn't be able to do any of those jobs without getting fired for sure. I don't think I'm alone here. Many people just don't have the fine motor skills or personality (in the case of real estate) to succeed in these professions. Second, the gap in median salary between those with only a BA/BS and those who attended college but didn't graduate is very high.
And LOL at the military, yeah take on a higher risk of dying and/or have to participate in wars and other things to which you object. What a country, that is some freedom!
-
Not to mention all the folks who have physical and mental health conditions/histories that disqualify them from the military.
-
You must have missed the part of the discussion we had where people are forced to get degrees to even be considered for most types of employment.
The fact that you think people are "forced" to get a 4-year degree to get a decent job is absurd.
This statement is complete garbage for several reasons.
It assumes that one must have a college degree to find gainful employment, which is WRONG.
There are MILLIONS of people, making really good money, that don't have a 4-year degree...
Plumber, welder, carpenter, cabinet maker, electrician, heavy equipment operator, sales of all kinds (real estate, insurance, vehicles, ect.), beautician/hairdresser, dental assistant, factory worker, mechanic.
Lots and lots of people in professions noted above are making more than people with college degrees.
And demand for skilled trades has been increasing significantly over the last decade and continues to rise.
As older people retire from the trades, there aren't enough skilled workers to replace them.
It also assumes you must go into huge debt to get an education, with is also a myth.
Associates degrees, community college, satellite campuses can all be very reasonably priced.
I posted earlier that tuition at the satellite campus of my local top-tier state university is $6/yr, which includes all fees.
You can also join the National Guard, Reserves, military branch and go to college for free.
First of all, no, there isn't money to be made in most trades. Some people do well in them, but the number of people struggling in the trades is much higher. And the cost of trades training is pretty close to what it costs to get a college degree, except you can't get loans for it.
Secondly, yes, let's all join the military when the US keeps invading countries and getting people killed. If you want an education, then all you have to do is be willing to die for oil. Ask Generation X how they felt about that during the Iraq War.
None of your arguments carry any water. If you want an education, you have to pay for it and unless you are a lucky member of the privileged few, then you need to borrow to pay for it because it costs an arm and a leg. Prices are too high, because the Boomers got theirs and then pulled the ladder up behind them. That's why forgiving loans is good policy.
It's also a good idea for Biden to give something to the people who got him elected. Like how Trump transferred tax dollars from coastal Blue states to landlocked Red states to thank them for their support after the 2016 election.
-
I'm ok if you're not for student loan forgiveness but not for the reason of "so and so paid off their loans, it's unfair to them and unfair to those who never went to college". What we should be concerned about is what is the best policy now and going forward, period. Otherwise it's a crabs in a bucket mentality to not forgive loans just because all these other people didn't get the same benefit. We'd never progress as a society if we always had this mindset with respect to everything.
-
I'm ok if you're not for student loan forgiveness but not for the reason of "so and so paid off their loans, it's unfair to them and unfair to those who never went to college". What we should be concerned about is what is the best policy now and going forward, period. Otherwise it's a crabs in a bucket mentality to not forgive loans just because all these other people didn't get the same benefit. We'd never progress as a society if we always had this mindset with respect to everything.
Nobody should be all in for student loan forgiveness. Again, there's a problem with the cost of going to college being ridiculous, and instead of identifying the root cause and fixing the problem, we're suggesting silly things such as forgiving the loans AND forcing other people who have nothing to do with it, to pay for it, because privilege or whatever the trendy word is these days.
-
I'm ok if you're not for student loan forgiveness but not for the reason of "so and so paid off their loans, it's unfair to them and unfair to those who never went to college". What we should be concerned about is what is the best policy now and going forward, period. Otherwise it's a crabs in a bucket mentality to not forgive loans just because all these other people didn't get the same benefit. We'd never progress as a society if we always had this mindset with respect to everything.
Nobody should be all in for student loan forgiveness. Again, there's a problem with the cost of going to college being ridiculous, and instead of identifying the root cause and fixing the problem, we're suggesting silly things such as forgiving the loans AND forcing other people who have nothing to do with it, to pay for it, because privilege or whatever the trendy word is these days.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Fixing the root cause does nothing for the people who are already stuck.
-
Nobody should be all in for student loan forgiveness. Again, there's a problem with the cost of going to college being ridiculous, and instead of identifying the root cause and fixing the problem, we're suggesting silly things such as forgiving the loans AND forcing other people who have nothing to do with it, to pay for it, because privilege or whatever the trendy word is these days.
So where is your proof that this is going to happen? Don't think Biden can just by executive order start taxing middle class Americans to "pay for this". Not to mention there's no need to "pay for this", the federal government does not need our tax money to pay for anything b/c it is a sovereign currency issuer. After all, there were no taxing "pay fors" in the Covid relief package nor were/are there any for authorization of increased defense spending. That's federal fiscal reality, go learn some MMT geez.
-
First of all, no, there isn't money to be made in most trades. Some people do well in them, but the number of people struggling in the trades is much higher. And the cost of trades training is pretty close to what it costs to get a college degree, except you can't get loans for it.
There isn't money to be made in most trade!?!?!
I'm curious, how many of your family members or close friends are in the trades?
The vast majority of my family do NOT have college degrees, yet they are living normal middle-class lives.
And they hold jobs that I listed in my previous post.
You are clearly out of touch with what is going on in America.
There is a huge shortage of skilled labor, and as been for many years.
You can live a comfortable life, and earn as much as many people with college degrees, by getting into a skilled trade.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d)
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978)
None of your arguments carry any water. If you want an education, you have to pay for it and unless you are a lucky member of the privileged few, then you need to borrow to pay for it because it costs an arm and a leg
My arguments absolutely carry water.
1) There is NO QUESTION that skilled trades are in extreme demand AND you can make a good living at them.
2) I have proven that college does not have to "cost an arm an a leg". Like anything else, you can choose to spend a little or a lot. $6K/year (including all fees) is not expensive.
-
You must have missed the part of the discussion we had where people are forced to get degrees to even be considered for most types of employment.
The fact that you think people are "forced" to get a 4-year degree to get a decent job is absurd.
This statement is complete garbage for several reasons.
It assumes that one must have a college degree to find gainful employment, which is WRONG.
There are MILLIONS of people, making really good money, that don't have a 4-year degree...
Plumber, welder, carpenter, cabinet maker, electrician, heavy equipment operator, sales of all kinds (real estate, insurance, vehicles, ect.), beautician/hairdresser, dental assistant, factory worker, mechanic.
The flip side is also true and the crux of the problem: a college degree, in and of itself, doesn't promise a great job.
At the liberal arts college where I went to graduate school, my student referred to his degree as a "green card", i.e. license to get a job.
It can be, and maybe at that prestigious university it is. But so many of the student loan horror stories I hear are about various liberal arts majors (often English or music) with terrible jobs.
I don't know if they don't want to teach, or - like me - find it a poor personality fit, or they don't want to live where the jobs are.
I even had words with my supervisor about the liberal arts bent to the math curriculum - no actuarial studies, no applied math. They were proud that their theoretical math major was growing, and I wondered where all those students would find jobs. 100 students per year were not going to become professors.
I don't disapprove of some rigor, but the freshman theoretical calculus provides enough logic and proving skills. Another 3 years of it does nothing for future actuaries or statisticians, much less doctors or lawyers.
-
Nobody should be all in for student loan forgiveness. Again, there's a problem with the cost of going to college being ridiculous, and instead of identifying the root cause and fixing the problem, we're suggesting silly things such as forgiving the loans AND forcing other people who have nothing to do with it, to pay for it, because privilege or whatever the trendy word is these days.
So where is your proof that this is going to happen? Don't think Biden can just by executive order start taxing middle class Americans to "pay for this". Not to mention there's no need to "pay for this", the federal government does not need our tax money to pay for anything b/c it is a sovereign currency issuer. After all, there were no taxing "pay fors" in the Covid relief package nor were/are there any for authorization of increased defense spending. That's federal fiscal reality, go learn some MMT geez.
So things just get paid for without ultimately taxing citizens?
And is this the type of response that always comes from people on the left who like to look down on others and tell them to go learn MMT and whatever other BS they come up with?
-
Considering the very left political lean on these forums, I'm quite surprised (and pleased) with the number of "No" votes.
Forgiving student loans only treats a symptom. In the process, it creates side effects that breed resentment and rewards poor financial decision-making.
It'd be far more important to treat the cause of the problem. Going back a step, you could argue whether or not there is a problem, but I won't waste time pointing out how astonishingly easy it is to graduate from college debt-free. I get it. Eighteen year-olds don't make the best decisions, and being told their whole lives that college was worth any cost certainly didn't help.
How do we reduce the amount of student loans that Americans get when going to college? We look at why they are getting the loans to begin with. The cost of college has increased dramatically in the last few decades. That's due to a combination of things, but the primary drivers of that are increased demand and federally guaranteed student loans.
To deal with increased demand, we either need to reduce demand or increase supply. Building more colleges is the easy answer, but that requires a lot of work and people. I'm all for reducing demand. College is not for everyone, and most jobs that require a degree don't really need one. This narrative that kids have heard for decades that college is worth any cost is wrong. Unfortunately, that's not something that the federal government can fix, as far as I can tell.
The next problem is federally guaranteed student loans. The fact that an 18 year-old can sign up for tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt with no guarantee of future earnings is absurd. That is something the federal government can fix. It'll mean that a lot of kids end up getting denied on loan applications, but that will reduce demand for college and therefore the price. It'll be easier to go to college without loans.
-
So things just get paid for without ultimately taxing citizens?
And is this the type of response that always comes from people on the left who like to look down on others and tell them to go learn MMT and whatever other BS they come up with?
Yes, like I said, look at the COVID relief bill, the fed gov't just marks up the checking accounts, that's it. It's not like it takes money from such and such place and then transfers that money to people's checking accounts. They didn't "pay for" the increased unemployment benefits by attaching increased taxes. This is not some controversial opinion, it's just describing reality at the federal level for any sovereign currency issuer. Now what you do with that knowledge of reality can be up for debate, you could use it as leverage for right wing policy ideas just as much as for left ideas.
Almost everything you (the general you) learn about how this all works is wrong. Fed gov't can't any more run out of $ then say Target running out of gift cards.
And you know we wouldn't have to be so condescending if people bothered to be open to learning something heterodox instead of accepting the bullshit conventional wisdom unthinkingly.
And don't even respond to me until you've read the Deficit Myth or anything on this topic, otherwise you're just expelling hot air and wasting everyone's time.
-
Being condescending doesn't help your cause my friend. It just makes you intolerable as a human being.
-
First of all, no, there isn't money to be made in most trades. Some people do well in them, but the number of people struggling in the trades is much higher. And the cost of trades training is pretty close to what it costs to get a college degree, except you can't get loans for it.
There isn't money to be made in most trade!?!?!
I'm curious, how many of your family members or close friends are in the trades?
The vast majority of my family do NOT have college degrees, yet they are living normal middle-class lives.
And they hold jobs that I listed in my previous post.
You are clearly out of touch with what is going on in America.
There is a huge shortage of skilled labor, and as been for many years.
You can live a comfortable life, and earn as much as many people with college degrees, by getting into a skilled trade.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d)
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978)
None of your arguments carry any water. If you want an education, you have to pay for it and unless you are a lucky member of the privileged few, then you need to borrow to pay for it because it costs an arm and a leg
My arguments absolutely carry water.
1) There is NO QUESTION that skilled trades are in extreme demand AND you can make a good living at them.
2) I have proven that college does not have to "cost an arm an a leg". Like anything else, you can choose to spend a little or a lot. $6K/year (including all fees) is not expensive.
For your information, my grandfather was an electrician and he died in a trailer park in Florida. So except for certain circumstances for very lucky people, the trades don't pay. And I've seen how much it costs to get trained in the trades and it's really expensive. Just because you can quote the lucky few doesn't mean that it's actually the way it is. Just like the fact that a few people win the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is a great retirement strategy.
College is easily BY FAR the best way to get a middle class life. It's not even close. People with college degrees almost always make a lot more money than people without them, so, yeah, it is basically necessary to have them if you want to have a good middle class life. My college education is why I don't struggle anymore. To my family, I am now the "rich relative" because of my college education.
-
I can see the MMM forums are not immune to internet trolls... I won't name any names for fear of encouraging additional baseless replies. Grow up; realize that this is a complicated issue and both sides have valid, respectable arguments for and against. I personally don't support loan forgiveness but I can see why some do and I'm trying to learn from people that have different points of view. Trolling people about privilege and claiming college is mandatory to make money isn't adding anything to the discussion, you're just trying to upset people and paint a 1 sided picture on an issue. Take that shit to Fox News or MSNBC comment threads.
-
So except for certain circumstances for very lucky people, the trades don't pay.
So, yeah, it is basically necessary to have them [college degrees] if you want to have a good middle class life.
You are clearly out of touch with reality on this topic.
You don't think electricians, plumbers, firemen, policemen, insurance agents, mechanics, ect, ect can live a good middle class life?
Only ~30% of working age adults have a 4-year degree!
So you are saying the remaining 70% of the US population is living hopeless lives?
Did you even bother to read the articles I linked to?
Here are some quotes...
- Some 30 million jobs in the United States that pay an average of $55,000 per year don't require bachelor's degrees.
- While a shortage of workers is pushing wages higher in the skilled trades, the financial return from a bachelor's degree is softening, even as the price — and the average debt into which it plunges students — keeps going up.
- But high school graduates have been so effectively encouraged to get a bachelor's that high-paid jobs requiring shorter and less expensive training are going unfilled.
-
So except for certain circumstances for very lucky people, the trades don't pay.
So, yeah, it is basically necessary to have them [college degrees] if you want to have a good middle class life.
You are clearly out of touch with reality on this topic.
You don't think electricians, plumbers, firemen, policemen, insurance agents, mechanics, ect, ect can live a good middle class life?
Only ~30% of working age adults have a 4-year degree!
So you are saying the remaining 70% of the US population is living hopeless lives?
Did you even bother to read the articles I linked to?
Here are some quotes...
- Some 30 million jobs in the United States that pay an average of $55,000 per year don't require bachelor's degrees.
- While a shortage of workers is pushing wages higher in the skilled trades, the financial return from a bachelor's degree is softening, even as the price — and the average debt into which it plunges students — keeps going up.
- But high school graduates have been so effectively encouraged to get a bachelor's that high-paid jobs requiring shorter and less expensive training are going unfilled.
Electricians, plumbers, mechanics, firefighters, insurance agents . . . isn't it pretty common for them all to have post secondary education if they want to get ahead in their careers?
55k a year is certainly not destitute, but it isn't a great salary if you've been working the same job for 20+ years. Don't get me wrong - there's absolutely nothing bad about a career that doesn't require anything but a high school diploma . . . but average salary without a degree is 30,500$. Average salary with a bachelors is 49,900$.
Is it possible to have a good middle class life without post secondary education? Sure. Is it harder to do so? The numbers would seem to argue that it definitely is.
-
So much silver spoon privilege in this thread. And they are all so blind to it.
Indeed!
-
This is insanity.
I can't believe how many people are in favor of student loan forgiveness.
This is giving millions of people a free pass to live well beyond their means while in college.
These loans pay for fancy apartments, fancy clothes/electronics, eating out 3 meals/day, not having to work, sleeping in every day, skipping class, partying every night.
I saw most of my friends take out the maximum in student loans simply to pay for their carefree lifestyles...and several didn't even graduate!
The large state school in my Midwestern town has two satellite campuses.
Total tuition is $6000 per YEAR.
Well that's great that you know of 1 state school that has $6000 for tuition and that you "saw most of your friends" spend lavishly while on student loans. But your anecdotal experience doesn't match reality. Most are around $10,000 not including fees, room and board, books and (now, because most classes are remote) computer and internet. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic
Moreover, some of the most needed and lowest paid professions require graduate degrees such as social work, many medical professionals, and teaching (in many states). You'd honestly be against student loan forgiveness for a social worker making $50k to pay off her student debt? Or a teacher making $60k and using part of it to buy school supplies? Or a lawyer who suffers permanent brain damage in a freak accident and can no longer work but still owes $400k in school debt (this is a true story from someone I know)?
Just because your friends were irresponsible doesn't mean most people with student debt are.
-
So things just get paid for without ultimately taxing citizens?
And is this the type of response that always comes from people on the left who like to look down on others and tell them to go learn MMT and whatever other BS they come up with?
Yes, like I said, look at the COVID relief bill, the fed gov't just marks up the checking accounts, that's it. It's not like it takes money from such and such place and then transfers that money to people's checking accounts. They didn't "pay for" the increased unemployment benefits by attaching increased taxes. This is not some controversial opinion, it's just describing reality at the federal level for any sovereign currency issuer. Now what you do with that knowledge of reality can be up for debate, you could use it as leverage for right wing policy ideas just as much as for left ideas.
Almost everything you (the general you) learn about how this all works is wrong. Fed gov't can't any more run out of $ then say Target running out of gift cards.
And you know we wouldn't have to be so condescending if people bothered to be open to learning something heterodox instead of accepting the bullshit conventional wisdom unthinkingly.
And don't even respond to me until you've read the Deficit Myth or anything on this topic, otherwise you're just expelling hot air and wasting everyone's time.
You're not exactly delivering ground breaking knowledge here. Anyone with even just a passing interest in macroeconomics is well aware of MMT. It has some interesting findings and was generally helpful in shifting the conversation about deficits. What it does not promise, except to its most fervent supporters, is a license to increase government spending. Maybe you should read about it some more until you come to a more balanced view.
-
First of all, no, there isn't money to be made in most trades. Some people do well in them, but the number of people struggling in the trades is much higher. And the cost of trades training is pretty close to what it costs to get a college degree, except you can't get loans for it.
There isn't money to be made in most trade!?!?!
I'm curious, how many of your family members or close friends are in the trades?
The vast majority of my family do NOT have college degrees, yet they are living normal middle-class lives.
And they hold jobs that I listed in my previous post.
You are clearly out of touch with what is going on in America.
There is a huge shortage of skilled labor, and as been for many years.
You can live a comfortable life, and earn as much as many people with college degrees, by getting into a skilled trade.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d)
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978)
None of your arguments carry any water. If you want an education, you have to pay for it and unless you are a lucky member of the privileged few, then you need to borrow to pay for it because it costs an arm and a leg
My arguments absolutely carry water.
1) There is NO QUESTION that skilled trades are in extreme demand AND you can make a good living at them.
2) I have proven that college does not have to "cost an arm an a leg". Like anything else, you can choose to spend a little or a lot. $6K/year (including all fees) is not expensive.
For your information, my grandfather was an electrician and he died in a trailer park in Florida. So except for certain circumstances for very lucky people, the trades don't pay. And I've seen how much it costs to get trained in the trades and it's really expensive. Just because you can quote the lucky few doesn't mean that it's actually the way it is. Just like the fact that a few people win the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is a great retirement strategy.
College is easily BY FAR the best way to get a middle class life. It's not even close. People with college degrees almost always make a lot more money than people without them, so, yeah, it is basically necessary to have them if you want to have a good middle class life. My college education is why I don't struggle anymore. To my family, I am now the "rich relative" because of my college education.
My plumber sent his kids to college. I’m bemused by the fact that people do not understand that people who go into the trades take out student loans.
I don’t think of it as a gift to the Undeserving Educated. Forgiving student loans would be a huge economic stimulus .
-
I don’t think of it as a gift to the Undeserving Educated. Forgiving student loans would be a huge economic stimulus .
Yeah. So would forgiving credit card debt. The debtors could go out and buy brand new televisions...again. Yuge economic stimulus, to make America great again.
If student debt were to be forgiven in my country, the first thing I'd do is take out a student loan one way or another, before the forgiveness deadline. Awesome, free money am I right.
-
So things just get paid for without ultimately taxing citizens?
And is this the type of response that always comes from people on the left who like to look down on others and tell them to go learn MMT and whatever other BS they come up with?
Yes, like I said, look at the COVID relief bill, the fed gov't just marks up the checking accounts, that's it. It's not like it takes money from such and such place and then transfers that money to people's checking accounts. They didn't "pay for" the increased unemployment benefits by attaching increased taxes. This is not some controversial opinion, it's just describing reality at the federal level for any sovereign currency issuer. Now what you do with that knowledge of reality can be up for debate, you could use it as leverage for right wing policy ideas just as much as for left ideas.
Almost everything you (the general you) learn about how this all works is wrong. Fed gov't can't any more run out of $ then say Target running out of gift cards.
And you know we wouldn't have to be so condescending if people bothered to be open to learning something heterodox instead of accepting the bullshit conventional wisdom unthinkingly.
And don't even respond to me until you've read the Deficit Myth or anything on this topic, otherwise you're just expelling hot air and wasting everyone's time.
You're not exactly delivering ground breaking knowledge here. Anyone with even just a passing interest in macroeconomics is well aware of MMT. It has some interesting findings and was generally helpful in shifting the conversation about deficits. What it does not promise, except to its most fervent supporters, is a license to increase government spending. Maybe you should read about it some more until you come to a more balanced view.
Duh, inflation is the constraint. JFC where the fuck did I say you can just spent willy nilly? Nobody who is an MMTer says that. And I agree it's not groundbreaking, yet so many people fight so hard against it and it's obvious why.
-
Saying that inflation is the constraint with MMT is like saying that it's okay to give my money away to others in dribs and drabs till I notice the damage.
-
The Grand Theory of Privilege has been invoked. Everyone who voted "no" is now on notice that they are wrong and should immediately befriend more debtors to personally apologize to. No more discussion is permissible.
And we should also start dispensing checks to those that we offended, by not wanting to pay their bills.
-
So much silver spoon privilege in this thread. And they are all so blind to it.
I am definitely curious about the socioeconomic backgrounds of the "no forgiveness" folks. Really, of everyone. Like what childhood/education combo goes into creating one's opinion on this issue.
I'll bite, my parents had lower economic income, paid $6,000 at $50 a month for their home, paid it off in the 70s. My dad went on disability at 43 yrs old. They could not afford to pay for college. My privilege is being white, which I think is a slap in the face to minorities, you're just saying the can't make it or worse, giving them an excuse. btw, my wife doesn't have the "privilege" she is a minority. The last 20 years before retirement she figured out how to make more money than I did. (that may be my real privilege) I graduated high school and my inflation adjusted lifetime average yearly income is about $40k, if I add my wife's we are up to $70k. So, we didn't live a largely privileged life.
However, my kids have the privilege of us paying for their university.
If I had known that I could get the rest of you to pay for my kids tuition, I would have taken out loans. As of now, I have paid right at $200k of tuition, with about $60k to go. Who do I ask for reimbursement?
Ya, I voted no.
-
No, I oppose it along with many other handouts, to both poor and wealthy people. I don't even like that people get big tax breaks for having children.
-
I will start by saying that I had the advantage of "free" university B Sc major in a former communist country.
The university is not a good one on the world scene, but it gave me the knowledge to earn a lot.
I even got some money when I had good grades.
I don't know if I agree with look an forgiveness if it does not also include a plan to remove the beed for a loan in the future.
If it is only a one time forgiveness during Covid then Insee this just as a populist measure.
I would rather see a plan to make higher education easier to achieve for all from now on.
I don't know if it will completely remove "privilege" and I also don't understand the big aversity towards "privilege".
I read some of the "privilege" talks like "you should not be allowed to use your money (hard earned or not) to obtain a better life". That leads me to look this rethoric as communist and I can't rezonate at all with it as I saw what communiam looks like (although I was priviledged then too as my parents were in the middle class. I still remember catching them saying "don't eat butter, leave it for the kids, we don't know when will we find more to buy").
Even during the communist time I went to the good schiil/teacher so there is privilege in communism too...
This is how I read the "privilege" talk - all should be equal ..... and the equality happens at the lowest level possible, not the highest or even the median or average...
I would like to see equality (or at least more equality) for studies. There will still ve good schools and not so good schools but if you can easily go to the good enough schools the more expensive ones will have to adjust.
I hope I will see better education options for my kids here...
Another one, I just learned that I am a white supremacist because my kid is in a private school. I would ask those stupid people what would they say about the people of other races/colours who have their kids in the same class as my kid - are they white supremacists too????
Rant over.
Last thing: if the forgiveness is the only improvement we xan get I would say something is better than nothing.
But this is exactly what a populist measure is, mesmerizing with some thing so you forget about the big picture.
-
First of all, no, there isn't money to be made in most trades. Some people do well in them, but the number of people struggling in the trades is much higher. And the cost of trades training is pretty close to what it costs to get a college degree, except you can't get loans for it.
There isn't money to be made in most trade!?!?!
I'm curious, how many of your family members or close friends are in the trades?
The vast majority of my family do NOT have college degrees, yet they are living normal middle-class lives.
And they hold jobs that I listed in my previous post.
You are clearly out of touch with what is going on in America.
There is a huge shortage of skilled labor, and as been for many years.
You can live a comfortable life, and earn as much as many people with college degrees, by getting into a skilled trade.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d)
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978)
None of your arguments carry any water. If you want an education, you have to pay for it and unless you are a lucky member of the privileged few, then you need to borrow to pay for it because it costs an arm and a leg
My arguments absolutely carry water.
1) There is NO QUESTION that skilled trades are in extreme demand AND you can make a good living at them.
2) I have proven that college does not have to "cost an arm an a leg". Like anything else, you can choose to spend a little or a lot. $6K/year (including all fees) is not expensive.
For your information, my grandfather was an electrician and he died in a trailer park in Florida. So except for certain circumstances for very lucky people, the trades don't pay. And I've seen how much it costs to get trained in the trades and it's really expensive. Just because you can quote the lucky few doesn't mean that it's actually the way it is. Just like the fact that a few people win the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is a great retirement strategy.
Sorry but I have to agree with researcher1; your bolded statement is "laughably out of touch". No conclusion can be drawn from your anecdotal evidence of one; researcher1 has posted links to some actual data. My extended family has many people of all ages in various skilled and unskilled trade/labour positions. I also can't draw conclusions based on small numbers but I can give a few examples. The ones who struggle are the ones who are unreliable and drift in and out of work for personal reasons (and one of them has a gambling problem); I have sympathy for them, but the idea of loan forgiveness is completely unrelated to their problems.
A tradesperson in almost any trade (in most towns and cities), who is reliable and takes their job seriously, is always in demand and will earn a very good living. A smaller number with business savvy will eventually become business owners, and they end up being the typical "millionaire-next-door" types. Calling it a "lottery" is frankly insulting.
A downside to the trades is that they can be more dependent on the ebb and flow of the local economy than most white collar jobs. During "down" times, people in certain trades (e.g. construction, oil-related) will have temporary setbacks and it's common for them to relocate to where the jobs are. It's also relatively easy and cheap for them to retrain for another trade. During boom times, however, they can save plenty of money.
Some stats from my area: five years after graduation, the average income of a graduate from our trade school is usually HIGHER than that of a graduate of our flagship university (caveat: this stat fluctuates with the economy and I haven't seen the latest numbers).
-
First of all, no, there isn't money to be made in most trades. Some people do well in them, but the number of people struggling in the trades is much higher. And the cost of trades training is pretty close to what it costs to get a college degree, except you can't get loans for it.
There isn't money to be made in most trade!?!?!
I'm curious, how many of your family members or close friends are in the trades?
The vast majority of my family do NOT have college degrees, yet they are living normal middle-class lives.
And they hold jobs that I listed in my previous post.
You are clearly out of touch with what is going on in America.
There is a huge shortage of skilled labor, and as been for many years.
You can live a comfortable life, and earn as much as many people with college degrees, by getting into a skilled trade.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/25/605092520/high-paying-trade-jobs-sit-empty-while-high-school-grads-line-up-for-university)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahchamberlain/2019/08/21/addressing-the-skilled-labor-shortage-in-america/?sh=1952b7f8181d)
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/339978)
None of your arguments carry any water. If you want an education, you have to pay for it and unless you are a lucky member of the privileged few, then you need to borrow to pay for it because it costs an arm and a leg
My arguments absolutely carry water.
1) There is NO QUESTION that skilled trades are in extreme demand AND you can make a good living at them.
2) I have proven that college does not have to "cost an arm an a leg". Like anything else, you can choose to spend a little or a lot. $6K/year (including all fees) is not expensive.
For your information, my grandfather was an electrician and he died in a trailer park in Florida. So except for certain circumstances for very lucky people, the trades don't pay. And I've seen how much it costs to get trained in the trades and it's really expensive. Just because you can quote the lucky few doesn't mean that it's actually the way it is. Just like the fact that a few people win the lottery doesn't mean that the lottery is a great retirement strategy.
Sorry but I have to agree with researcher1; your bolded statement is "laughably out of touch". No conclusion can be drawn from your anecdotal evidence of one; researcher1 has posted links to some actual data. My extended family has many people of all ages in various skilled and unskilled trade/labour positions. I also can't draw conclusions based on small numbers but I can give a few examples. The ones who struggle are the ones who are unreliable and drift in and out of work for personal reasons (and one of them has a gambling problem); I have sympathy for them, but the idea of loan forgiveness is completely unrelated to their problems.
A tradesperson in almost any trade (in most towns and cities), who is reliable and takes their job seriously, is always in demand and will earn a very good living. A smaller number with business savvy will eventually become business owners, and they end up being the typical "millionaire-next-door" types. Calling it a "lottery" is frankly insulting.
A downside to the trades is that they can be more dependent on the ebb and flow of the local economy than most white collar jobs. During "down" times, people in certain trades (e.g. construction, oil-related) will have temporary setbacks and it's common for them to relocate to where the jobs are. It's also relatively easy and cheap for them to retrain for another trade. During boom times, however, they can save plenty of money.
Some stats from my area: five years after graduation, the average income of a graduate from our trade school is usually HIGHER than that of a graduate of our flagship university (caveat: this stat fluctuates with the economy and I haven't seen the latest numbers).
Sorry. I wasn't paying attention. Did you say something?
-
I would like the government to forgive all mortgages, current and future, so that we can have bigger and more houses for everyone.
I want to have free houses in every cities of the U.S.
-
Sorry. I wasn't paying attention. Did you say something?
Seems like a habit.
-
This sure does make for some interesting planning. Like should I suggest to my son (currently in college) to pay for this semester with a loan (he' used his 529 and his own savings so far). Maybe it'll be too late for the first round of forgiveness, but would always be there for later forgivenesses, and he could always pay it off at any point if it seems not to happen. Seems like that would have a much much greater return than a lot of the little tax planning things we do just to have some loan available to forgive as opposed to spending down his savings.
It also seems a little 'icky' to do this, but not really sure how it would differ from any other time I strictly follow the rules with financial/tax/benefit planning (taking advantage of the huge solo 401k contribution amount allowed when I owned a business, planning to keep my income as low as possible for ACA premiums in retirement, etc). I guess it seems extremely 'icky' if I were to do it for myself given my high net worth but its not like my son has much. Its all very odd to think about compared to most programs.
-
I vote no. Everyone knew they were taking out student loans when they went to college and they understood how much of a burden it would be. It is simply not fair to give them a windfall now on the backs of the American people. There are better ways at righting this ship: (1) make all student loans subject to discharge in bankruptcy, (2) give the money to the American people as a whole int the form of a stimulus check, and (3) subsidize college education more going forward
-
My daughter is currently in college and I am struggling to pay her bills each semester by sacrificing my disposable income. The moment our Dear Lord executes a loan forgiveness, I will reduce my cash payments equivalent in magnitude to the size of the foregiveness and initiate a loan in the same amount. This will only be feasible to the extent that the timing of these projected new loans complies with the terms of the loan foregiveness.
-
Anyone that took out a student loan was an "adult" at the time and it was an adult decision, they knew they were borrowing money.
It's no different than an 18-20 year old non college kid taking out a loan for an automobile, home, or whatever. They know they are borrowing money, and know they have to pay it back or sh#t hits the fan.
-
Instead of a straight up forgiveness program, perhaps they could develop some sort of government funded side hustle thing where you could work 5 to 10 hours a week (in addition to your normal 40 hour a week job) and payment for that work would be applied at a decent rate (say $30 an hour?) toward your student loan debt?
Things like park cleanup, some light administrative stuff that doesn't require training, census stuff, I dunno, this is where the people who get paid would come up with ideas.
In this system, you would have to put a little hustle into the game but you could get out from under your student loan debt much faster while still improving your finances with your normal job.
-
Let the CBO hash out the numbers.
How much will it cost?
How much extra economic activity (ie stimulating effect) will that create?
How does this ratio, and the total size compare with other forms of handouts? e.g. the variety that is given to businesses and hence invariably flow to the 1%?
I’m, frankly, surprised to see so much ideological bull**** in this thread.
-
Instead of a straight up forgiveness program, perhaps they could develop some sort of government funded side hustle thing where you could work 5 to 10 hours a week (in addition to your normal 40 hour a week job) and payment for that work would be applied at a decent rate (say $30 an hour?) toward your student loan debt?
Things like park cleanup, some light administrative stuff that doesn't require training, census stuff, I dunno, this is where the people who get paid would come up with ideas.
In this system, you would have to put a little hustle into the game but you could get out from under your student loan debt much faster while still improving your finances with your normal job.
I like this idea. I do think something should be done to help people struggling with student loans, but reducing interest rates and/or extending the interest free timeline so that students can get started on life before repayment seem like better options than bulk loan forgiveness.
-
I would much rather see something more universal like a UBI or one time stimulus check than something that benefits only a select group of people. It seems unfair that people who paid off their loans early, never took out loans, or never went to college would get nothing.
Two point for this:
No. 1 - I think you are not factoring in how much of people's student loan debt loads are origination fees and interest. So you get 10k in loans for semester one, you get a check for 9600 to pay towards your tuition, fees, books, room and board or whatever, and the following day you owe 10001.37 because interest compounds daily, assuming a 5% rate.
Let me repeat that! Interest compounds daily. So - you can calculate what that borrower owes for that first semester when they graduate. somewhere between 12-13k I think just eyeballing. then there are the other loans.
Student loans are no longer just a way to help students get an education - it is an industry raking in billions in profit with many private and semi private companies in play in addition to the government. I think this is wrong.
No. 2 - the escalating costs of the education has been spiralling out of control. It's costs are inflated, in large part by whoever the student loan industry is enriching. Because they can. and then make more money off students. Education costs have increased by 145% since the 70's.
According to this site, https://www.nitrocollege.com/research/average-student-loan-debt, even after accounting for inflation education costs have more than doubled over that time period.
And one thing I don't want to hear is just go out and get scholarships or grants. There is no free lunch, and I'm tired of smug people talking about free rides. You know who pays for that? Other students who in fact end up paying even more than just for their own educations. Or tax payers. Or a combo.
Point 1: Interest is per diem, like it is on everything, and you exaggerate how it compounds. While you are in school most fed loans don't even accrue interest. There is a second type of student loan that accrues interest while you are in school but you only take that out if you absolutely have to. I never did and I took out $60k in student loans over 3 years.
Point 2: Agreed on escalating costs. That should be the priority to address imo.
-
Instead of a straight up forgiveness program, perhaps they could develop some sort of government funded side hustle thing where you could work 5 to 10 hours a week (in addition to your normal 40 hour a week job) and payment for that work would be applied at a decent rate (say $30 an hour?) toward your student loan debt?
Things like park cleanup, some light administrative stuff that doesn't require training, census stuff, I dunno, this is where the people who get paid would come up with ideas.
In this system, you would have to put a little hustle into the game but you could get out from under your student loan debt much faster while still improving your finances with your normal job.
I'd settle for just the fees and interest being taken off the top.
While your proposal is interesting, the administration of it is likely to be complex and expensive.
I would completely support waiving all fees and interest on all student loans.
-
It seems more likely now that $10,000 is going to be forgiven from all student loans with Democratic control of the Senate. It’s smart politics to reward the people who put Biden in power.
-
I believe in taking responsibility for yourself.
-
(https://preview.redd.it/fkl4i35j4uw31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8f74a4791e9835e73fc67b5641899bf50da36e9b)
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless these people are forcibly being dragged to the train tracks and they do not have the ability to simply decline. I don't see how a lot of people are missing this. This is not a matter of "well I had no other choice", or "I had no idea that I would have to pay this large amount back". It's definitely not the former because nobody is forcing you to sign up for it, and if it's the latter, then other people should not be responsible for your ignorance about the matter.
You must have missed the part of the discussion we had where people are forced to get degrees to even be considered for most types of employment.
REALLY? With nothing but hard work and gaining experience from that, I have saved 50k over the last 2 years. Do your research before going to school for a job that doesn't pay well. Common sense is something they don't teach I guess lolol.
-
This is insanity.
I can't believe how many people are in favor of student loan forgiveness.
This is giving millions of people a free pass to live well beyond their means while in college.
These loans pay for fancy apartments, fancy clothes/electronics, eating out 3 meals/day, not having to work, sleeping in every day, skipping class, partying every night.
I saw most of my friends take out the maximum in student loans simply to pay for their carefree lifestyles...and several didn't even graduate!
The large state school in my Midwestern town has two satellite campuses.
Total tuition is $6000 per YEAR.
It's very simple. Young people don't want to pay off their loans because they want the life of their parents, facebook friends, and youtubers. So they get out of college, lease or buy an expensive car, go to breweries, nice expensive apartment over a house share, eating out few times a week, shopping at whole foods, buying the latest IPHONE, etc. IT"S JUST NOT FAIR!
-
I’m not sure how I feel about student loan forgiveness as a blanket policy. I might support some form of forgiveness that is tapered by income, but would prefer to see that passed by Congress alongside more systemic changes to education financing. That seems unlikely unless the filibuster is eliminated.
I definitely support an expansion and simplification of public-service forgiveness programs. I also think up-front incentives to work in critical-need areas (e.g. renewable energy or cyber security) are a good idea, but I took advantage of such a program, so my opinion should come with a caveat.
-
I am torn. I have always been for it, but I think it would really go an extra step to tearing this country apart. Giving handouts to all the college elites? I can see how unfair it would seem to every struggling person who made the decision to not sign up for that debt. I think something more universal would be more beneficial and less divisive, such as medical debt forgiveness and/or universal health care.
This comes from the perspective of somebody who payed of my $70k of student debt in the last 2.5 years FYI. Still have $7k left at 3% interest, so sitting on that.
-
instead of bailing everyone out, why not cap/cut the interest rates and fix the actual problem. A bail out doesn't fix a damn thing if 4 years from now we (the country) is in the exact same situation...
Not to play the "not fair to me card" but I worked 20-40 hrs a week in a steel mill (very difficult job) while I was in school to pay for a lot of it. That being said, I was in school 15 years ago before prices really took off.
-
Realistically, the Biden administration has exactly 2 years to accomplish whatever it will accomplish. I'm betting their priorities will be beefing up the ACA, voting security / a new Voting Rights Act, some fresh subsidies for clean energy, replacing a Supreme Court justice, and of course beating Covid-19. If they accomplish any two of these agenda items, it'll be a breakthrough 2 years.
I don't see them taking on student loan forgiveness. As this thread proves, it's too divisive and rubs too many people as a handout to privileged humanities majors with a future in culinary customer service. More importantly, there probably isn't enough time.
-
I don't see them taking on student loan forgiveness. As this thread proves, it's too divisive and rubs too many people as a handout to privileged humanities majors with a future in culinary customer service. More importantly, there probably isn't enough time.
Your statement about the next two years could be especially true if you're right that student loan forgiveness never happens. Millions upon millions of young people voted for Biden specifically for student loan forgiveness. If he doesn't even deliver on the $10,000, much less the original $50,000 that was touted during the election times (though never specifically promised) I think a lot of voters will feel slighted. Of course, that's politics. They talk up whatever you care about when they need your vote, then ignore you once they've won the election.
For me, environmental policy and reducing oil dependency as quickly as possible should be top priority. Since so much of ACA shoring up is done via executive order, that's easy enough to fix. Basically anything Trump signed as EO, you just have an EO ready to go on inauguration day and be done with it. The EPA also has a lot of leeway for changing policies on their own without requiring fresh new laws to be passed. Also plenty of Republicans can get behind quite a number of environmental policies when it is framed as "This helps American businesses like all those corn farmers in the heartland of America, as well as big businesses like Tesla that make American jobs."
This shouldn't be divisive. Honestly, even student loan policy shouldn't be divisive. Look at how the stimulus checks went out. They looked at your last tax return and if you made too much money, your stimulus was reduced, possibly to $0. They could do the same for student loans. Like you're only eligible if you're 10+ years from your last class, and only eligible if your last five years of tax returns add up to less than a specified dollar amount. From the stats I've looked at, many people pay off their college within 10 years, so they'll get nothing and many others are high income earners and they too should get nothing. The ones we need to help the most are the ones that even after 10 years aren't making any money beyond what they could have without college. Get that money to the people who need it most and it's not divisive, it's just smart budgeting.
-
I don't see them taking on student loan forgiveness. As this thread proves, it's too divisive and rubs too many people as a handout to privileged humanities majors with a future in culinary customer service. More importantly, there probably isn't enough time.
Your statement about the next two years could be especially true if you're right that student loan forgiveness never happens. Millions upon millions of young people voted for Biden specifically for student loan forgiveness. If he doesn't even deliver on the $10,000, much less the original $50,000 that was touted during the election times (though never specifically promised) I think a lot of voters will feel slighted. Of course, that's politics. They talk up whatever you care about when they need your vote, then ignore you once they've won the election.
As far as I can tell, Joe Biden has ever promised a blanket $10,000, let alone $50,000 forgiveness. People on the fringe of the democratic party started making those calls after the election was won, hoping to build momentum, which is something politicians do.
https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/
If "millions upon millions" voted for him on that basis alone, they have a serious reading comprehension problem.
In other news, people gonna hear what people wanna hear.
-
I’m against forgiveness. There has to be personal responsibility. I would be for alternatives like automatic current federal bond rate refinancing, allowing the option of discharging student loans in bankruptcy (with appropriate guardrails), or targeted forgiveness for victims of fraud by for-profit schools. But blanket forgiveness seems like the wrong way to go. It effectively punishes those who paid their loans off on their own.
-
Has anyone posted this article on any of the student loan threads?
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/student-loan-horror-stories-borrowed
fbclid=IwAR2Lnnyy1vpgYjXHvgDEu1hmAV0W_9SkY9zMU5ZCXDGVbtxdxi3YvUtipcQ
I think Matt Taibi is great at writing about complex financial problems.
One of the things I've read somewhere is that people who take out lower amounts of initial loans are among the most likely to make late payments and start to incur fees and penalties, thus starting the downward spiral of ever growing loan payments. So the 10k forgiveness may do more to serve as a stop gap to help a new crop of pandemic endangered borrowers while the new administration tackles other problems first.
Additionally, my understanding is that the current administration was not enforcing/denying fraud protections to students who took out loans based on false info from for-profit schools. There are rules in place that say if a for-profit school falsely represents itself to get you to take out loans, then your loans can be forgiven. A federal judge ruled against DeVos because her Department of Ed basically shoved the claims in a drawer and and ignored them for 4 years.
I can see how forgiveness feels like a good solution to undoing damage.
In any case - I think there is a lot of really complex stuff going on with school loans, and undoing/fixing this byzantine process may take enough time that even more people are harmed.
Loan forgiveness and starting over may just end up being more efficient.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Properly fund the state universities (and remove administrative bloat) so tuition and fees become very affordable.
Continue grants for the very poor to attend.
Beef up money for faculty needed to teach during the evening and weekends for those already in the job market.
Beef up labor protections so employers can't screw over employees and schedule them for work during class time.
Then everyone in America will have a reasonable chance to better themselves. We'll collectively be pulling our nation up by the boot straps to make us all a better skilled, better educated citizenry.
With an added benefit that there will be fewer ignorant yokels to fall for the big lies put forward by the alt-right.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Properly fund the state universities (and remove administrative bloat) so tuition and fees become very affordable.
Continue grants for the very poor to attend.
Beef up money for faculty needed to teach during the evening and weekends for those already in the job market.
Beef up labor protections so employers can't screw over employees and schedule them for work during class time.
Then everyone in America will have a reasonable chance to better themselves. We'll collectively be pulling our nation up by the boot straps to make us all a better skilled, better educated citizenry.
With an added benefit that there will be fewer ignorant yokels to fall for the big lies put forward by the alt-right.
i support just about everything here
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Wealth Transfer? Hahahahahaha. Over the last 40 years, there has been a very consistent wealth transfer in only one direction ---> to the RICH. I see nothing wrong with throwing a bone to folks just starting out in their careers, now will I be resentful if they get a hand up even though I paid off all my loans.
BUT, I also believe in everything Swordguy says. The system should not overburden 18-22 year olds with so much debt to begin with. Student Loan forgiveness should not pass without a systemic overhaul.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Wealth Transfer? Hahahahahaha. Over the last 40 years, there has been a very consistent wealth transfer in only one direction ---> to the RICH. I see nothing wrong with throwing a bone to folks just starting out in their careers, now will I be resentful if they get a hand up even though I paid off all my loans.
BUT, I also believe in everything Swordguy says. The system should not overburden 18-22 year olds with so much debt to begin with. Student Loan forgiveness should not pass without a systemic overhaul.
I think that's the point though... it's a wealth transfer to the rich because the richer population (generally speaking) are the ones going to college and many of them are racking up loans.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Wealth Transfer? Hahahahahaha. Over the last 40 years, there has been a very consistent wealth transfer in only one direction ---> to the RICH. I see nothing wrong with throwing a bone to folks just starting out in their careers, now will I be resentful if they get a hand up even though I paid off all my loans.
BUT, I also believe in everything Swordguy says. The system should not overburden 18-22 year olds with so much debt to begin with. Student Loan forgiveness should not pass without a systemic overhaul.
I think that's the point though... it's a wealth transfer to the rich because the richer population (generally speaking) are the ones going to college and many of them are racking up loans.
yes, student loan forgiveness is a wealth transfer to the ~30% of kids that go to college, college graduates earn hundreds of thousands of dollars (on average) more than high school graduates
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html#:~:text=Men%20with%20bachelor's%20degrees%20earn,earnings%20than%20high%20school%20graduates.
still agree that the whole system should be reworked, but giving a handout to college educated people who already have a leg up financially is, in my opinion, not the right message to send to the ~60+% of folks struggling that didnt go to college
-
Is there a reason the government shouldn’t automatically put anyone who qualifies for IBR on the plan? The DOEd has your loan balance and the IRS has your income...
-
Is there a reason the government shouldn’t automatically put anyone who qualifies for IBR on the plan? The DOEd has your loan balance and the IRS has your income...
Probably because IBR may never pay off the loan balance. That's like buying a car, and then making the car payment so it doesn't pay off the loan. Why would a lender do that?
-
Is there a reason the government shouldn’t automatically put anyone who qualifies for IBR on the plan? The DOEd has your loan balance and the IRS has your income...
Probably because IBR may never pay off the loan balance. That's like buying a car, and then making the car payment so it doesn't pay off the loan. Why would a lender do that?
IBR ends in taxed forgiveness (after something like 20-25 years I believe).
There are already many federal loan forgiveness programs. They are just difficult to navigate and tend to set up borrowers for failure.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Wealth Transfer? Hahahahahaha. Over the last 40 years, there has been a very consistent wealth transfer in only one direction ---> to the RICH. I see nothing wrong with throwing a bone to folks just starting out in their careers, now will I be resentful if they get a hand up even though I paid off all my loans.
BUT, I also believe in everything Swordguy says. The system should not overburden 18-22 year olds with so much debt to begin with. Student Loan forgiveness should not pass without a systemic overhaul.
I think that's the point though... it's a wealth transfer to the rich because the richer population (generally speaking) are the ones going to college and many of them are racking up loans.
yes, student loan forgiveness is a wealth transfer to the ~30% of kids that go to college, college graduates earn hundreds of thousands of dollars (on average) more than high school graduates
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html#:~:text=Men%20with%20bachelor's%20degrees%20earn,earnings%20than%20high%20school%20graduates.
still agree that the whole system should be reworked, but giving a handout to college educated people who already have a leg up financially is, in my opinion, not the right message to send to the ~60+% of folks struggling that didnt go to college
So means test it for folks whose families aren't rich. Help the people who need helping.
-
I would like to see some forgiveness and revamping these types of loans. If your loans are less than 10K, total forgiveness. If you loans are less than 25K, then 10K forgiveness. If 50K or more, forgiveness of 25K. After than we need to reign in the interest on these kinds of loans. I am not talking about federal loans I am talking about both federal and private. If you are attending a community college your loan interest would be capped at 1.5% whether federal or private. If you are attending a 4 year state university your loan interest would be capped at 2% for federal and 2.5% for private. If you are attending a private university your loan interest would be say 4% for federal and 5% for private. This would help to focus students and families to really do some hard thinking about where they want to attend school and how much they can afford. I would also like to see some incentive programs for paying back the loans early. Say if you pay off your loans at an accelerated pace you end up having up to $10k forgiven, depending on the starting amount. This would help students to focus on working extra hard, a second job, living at home for a couple of years or with roomates, hard core budgeting and the reward is you pay less. I think the easiest time for a person to work extra is when they are young, just out of college before they start a family and buy a house.
I worked 2 jobs when I graduated. I had a regular desk job at an office 9-5 and then I would pick up bartending/wait staff shifts 1 weeknight and then on the weekends. I had a series of part time jobs over the years in addition to my regular job. This was all before I had kids. See I got into some credit card trouble when I was in college because I had no one teaching me how credit cards worked and they were giving them out like candy on campus every week. Once I got out in the real world and realized I had student loan payments, car insurance payments, rent, food and then credit card payments on top, the only solution was a second job. It took me about 4 years but I was able to get my credit cards done, and then car insurance dropped after I turned 25, and paid off my high interest student loans. I then consolidated the rest of my student loans into 1 loan at 1.75%. I still had student loan debt, still do today, will finally have it paid off this summer, but it was much more manageable. My payments are very low at $232/month and most of the payment is going to principal. So I focused on saving up an emergency fund and investing in my retirement accounts instead of accelerated pay off of my loans. Now that I am at a point in my life where I am maxing all mine and my husbands retirement accounts and our ER fund is up to 6 months, I am working on paying off the loans to get them gone. Again this much easier to do when most of you payments are going to principal and not interest. I was lucky when I consolidated it was 2004 and interest rates were super cheap. I don't see any reason why student loans cannot be a cheap interest rate, I mean if you can finance a $250,000 house at 2.25% then you should be able to do the same with student loans. Especially if they cannot be charged off or included in bankruptcy. I get they are unsecured loans, but are they really? I mean you can't get rid of these things unless you pay them off or die. They are garnishing social security checks of some people that owe student loans. I would say that is pretty secure.
I am also for allowing forgiveness for taking jobs in underserved fields. We already do this for teachers taking jobs in certain locations as well as doctors, but I would like to see this expanded. How about the people that go to night training school to become a nurse assistant and work in nursing homes. That is not a high paying field and it is so needed. Why not give them forgiveness for each year they work at a state/county nursing home? Also lawyers, wouldn't it be great if we could get some young lawyers working in rural communities as prosecutors/defense attorneys. Bring in some younger thinkers and get them more involved in the justice system for underserved areas/communities. Same for doctors, if you work in a community health clinic or in a rural area hospital so much of your loans are forgiven. I do believe some states do this, but all states need to do this. Any facility located in any state that uses federal medicaid monies should qualify for this.
There are lots of ways we can make this system work better for all tax paying citizens, not just through complete one time loan forgiveness.
-
I would like to see some forgiveness and revamping these types of loans. If your loans are less than 10K, total forgiveness. If you loans are less than 25K, then 10K forgiveness. If 50K or more, forgiveness of 25K. After than we need to reign in the interest on these kinds of loans. I am not talking about federal loans I am talking about both federal and private. If you are attending a community college your loan interest would be capped at 1.5% whether federal or private. If you are attending a 4 year state university your loan interest would be capped at 2% for federal and 2.5% for private. If you are attending a private university your loan interest would be say 4% for federal and 5% for private. This would help to focus students and families to really do some hard thinking about where they want to attend school and how much they can afford. I would also like to see some incentive programs for paying back the loans early. Say if you pay off your loans at an accelerated pace you end up having up to $10k forgiven, depending on the starting amount. This would help students to focus on working extra hard, a second job, living at home for a couple of years or with roomates, hard core budgeting and the reward is you pay less. I think the easiest time for a person to work extra is when they are young, just out of college before they start a family and buy a house.
Wouldn't offering forgiveness for quick repayment of very low interest private loans essentially amount to mandating that the private loan companies give money to rich people? I could invest the amount of money I would otherwise have spent on college, then pay off my loans immediately upon graduation to get this quick bonus while having earned more from my investments and the bonus than the increase in the loan balance. I'm not a huge fan of mandating private companies behave in an unprofitable manner, I'd rather just see the government offer low rates to people that actually need the leg up, particularly if they're attending public schools.
I am also for allowing forgiveness for taking jobs in underserved fields. We already do this for teachers taking jobs in certain locations as well as doctors, but I would like to see this expanded. How about the people that go to night training school to become a nurse assistant and work in nursing homes. That is not a high paying field and it is so needed. Why not give them forgiveness for each year they work at a state/county nursing home? Also lawyers, wouldn't it be great if we could get some young lawyers working in rural communities as prosecutors/defense attorneys. Bring in some younger thinkers and get them more involved in the justice system for underserved areas/communities. Same for doctors, if you work in a community health clinic or in a rural area hospital so much of your loans are forgiven. I do believe some states do this, but all states need to do this. Any facility located in any state that uses federal medicaid monies should qualify for this.
There are lots of ways we can make this system work better for all tax paying citizens, not just through complete one time loan forgiveness.
I agree with a lot of this. It is already true that you can get PSLF for federal direct loans if you work for government or a nonprofit organization (e.g. a legal clinic) after 10 years, but I think your suggestion that the payback happens year over year instead of only at the end of the process would be a dramatic improvement.
-
What if loans were forgiven during employment based on a timed rate?
Say you get $10 of loans forgiven for every hour worked at whatever job.
So if you have $40,000 of loans and can't find a job in Egyptology or whatever degree you picked, if you take up a job at Starbucks for $15/hr, you get an additional $10 per hour put toward your student loan debt.
So $400 a week toward your debt no matter what job you work, $20,000 a year but the money never is in your hands, it just pays off your debt.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Definitely.... one of the worst. I certainly hope it never happens. No one paid off my student loans for me. I worked to pay them off myself, just as I did all of my other loans. Let's get these young people started out taking responsibility for themselves instead of depending on other taxpayers to bail them out.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Definitely.... one of the worst. I certainly hope it never happens. No one paid off my student loans for me. I worked to pay them off myself, just as I did all of my other loans. Let's get these young people started out taking responsibility for themselves instead of depending on other taxpayers to bail them out.
Curious when you went to college?
-
The biggest reason I voted no is that no one has satisfactorily, to me, answered the question:
Why is forgiving student debt the priority compared to other potential uses for the money in question?
The impetus is on the people promoting the policy change to explain why should $1.6 trillion dollars be spent in this way? I've not had a satisfactory answer, and the amount is certainly not trivial, so I say no.
-
The biggest reason I voted no is that no one has satisfactorily, to me, answered the question:
Why is forgiving student debt the priority compared to other potential uses for the money in question?
The impetus is on the people promoting the policy change to explain why should $1.6 trillion dollars be spent in this way? I've not had a satisfactory answer, and the amount is certainly not trivial, so I say no.
To buy votes.
-
What if loans were forgiven during employment based on a timed rate?
Say you get $10 of loans forgiven for every hour worked at whatever job.
So if you have $40,000 of loans and can't find a job in Egyptology or whatever degree you picked, if you take up a job at Starbucks for $15/hr, you get an additional $10 per hour put toward your student loan debt.
So $400 a week toward your debt no matter what job you work, $20,000 a year but the money never is in your hands, it just pays off your debt.
I have studied baristas in their natural habitat extensively and can confirm that they love nothing more than being paid $10/hour less than credentialed baristas.
-
Background on my opinion - 1st generation college graduate who took out $30k+ in student loans and worked two jobs to keep up with food and rent. I was lucky to get a decent paying job after graduation and spent the next four years pushing every penny I could into paying off student loans. No vacations, no extravagant purchases, not going out to eat for four years. Paying off that last student loan was one of the most relieving feelings I have had in my life.
Saying all that, I can sympathize with both sides. I know how awful it is to have almost no life because you are paying for student loans for years. I don't want to extend that misery onto other people.
But I also feel extremely jealous that others would get to skip that period of sacrifice that I went through. I would absolutely love to have that time and money back now. To be closer to FIRE. To have had money to afford going on dates. So part of me abhors the idea of sacrificing that much just for others to get a clean slate. Call that unrefined thinking but I'm human so I don't have to be refined.
I voted no. I am more financially successful because of how I paid my student loans and the skills I learned to do that. The money that went to student loans became my Roth IRA and emergency fund. I avoided the hedonic treadmill as a result.
Granted, you could say I was wired this way because of the laser like focus I had on my student loans but I think we do people a disservice if we give them the impression that loans don't have real costs. Do we need to fix the system? Yes. Do I think divorcing costs from college does that? No.
-
I mean the big problem is they can't give the education back.
If I buy a $400,000 house and end up not being able to pay for it, usually I have to give it back for my loan to be forgiven.
How do you take back a business degree if the person wants their $50,000 to be cleared from their debt?
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
-
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
There's a solution! Simply allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. This was the rule of law before the GOP changed it in 2006 on a money grab for the banks. I also think schools need skin in the game. They should have to pay the government (who guarantees most loans) 25-50% in claw back payments if they keep on accepting students who can't do the work in majors/masters programs/phd programs that won't get those kids a decent job.
-
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
There's a solution! Simply allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. This was the rule of law before the GOP changed it in 2006 on a money grab for the banks. I also think schools need skin in the game. They should have to pay the government (who guarantees most loans) 25-50% in claw back payments if they keep on accepting students who can't do the work in majors/masters programs/phd programs that won't get those kids a decent job.
+1 this would solve the issue imo.
Right now, universities and associated banks have nearly no risk. This means no real market pressure to collectively keep down costs since... from their perspective free money!
I mean the big problem is they can't give the education back.
If I buy a $400,000 house and end up not being able to pay for it, usually I have to give it back for my loan to be forgiven.
How do you take back a business degree if the person wants their $50,000 to be cleared from their debt?
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
Credit cards are pretty similar to this in many cases.
-
I think in a lot of ways we really are focused on the wrong problem when we talk about college exclusively.
Why not focus some/all of this proposed money on dramatically increasing the quality of high school systems and making them more "job prep" and less "college prep" so that people graduating high school are more educated in general?
-
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
There's a solution! Simply allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. This was the rule of law before the GOP changed it in 2006 on a money grab for the banks. I also think schools need skin in the game. They should have to pay the government (who guarantees most loans) 25-50% in claw back payments if they keep on accepting students who can't do the work in majors/masters programs/phd programs that won't get those kids a decent job.
In a bankruptcy though you generally have to give up most of your assets (you can keep some very basic things). How do you give up your education? Do you sign something that says you will never use the business degree in work?
Before the law was changed, it was a lot more common to rack up a big student loan debt and then discharge it early in your career through bankruptcy while you had few other assets.
-
Before the law was changed, it was a lot more common to rack up a big student loan debt and then discharge it early in your career through bankruptcy while you had few other assets.
Would you please link your source on this? I'd be really interested to read it. I know the law restricting student loan debt bankruptcy was passed in 1978, but I haven't been able to find good sources on abuse that led to that law being enacted.
-
I think in a lot of ways we really are focused on the wrong problem when we talk about college exclusively.
Why not focus some/all of this proposed money on dramatically increasing the quality of high school systems and making them more "job prep" and less "college prep" so that people graduating high school are more educated in general?
Excellent point !
-
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
There's a solution! Simply allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. This was the rule of law before the GOP changed it in 2006 on a money grab for the banks. I also think schools need skin in the game. They should have to pay the government (who guarantees most loans) 25-50% in claw back payments if they keep on accepting students who can't do the work in majors/masters programs/phd programs that won't get those kids a decent job.
In a bankruptcy though you generally have to give up most of your assets (you can keep some very basic things). How do you give up your education? Do you sign something that says you will never use the business degree in work?
Before the law was changed, it was a lot more common to rack up a big student loan debt and then discharge it early in your career through bankruptcy while you had few other assets.
Dischargeable non-collateralized debt would have a high default rate. Either interest rates would have to go up or taxpayers would have to be on the hook for defaults.
IMO, we wouldn't be having this conversation if we addressed the real underlying problem, which is the high cost of higher ed. The more debt subsidies we introduce, the more pricing power we hand to colleges and universities. Increased loan availability has decoupled college costs from real-world earnings, and allowed tuition expenses to escalate far beyond a reasonable payback period. So the colleges replace their stadium with a bigger one, expand the administrative bureaucracy, bump up executive salaries, and raise tuition and fees to cover it because they can. Anything we do to make loans more affordable or more accessible will just drive more demand to universities, which can then raise the cost and still fill all their slots.
-
Agree with @Paul der Krake that the privilege talk is mostly unhelpful here. I acknowledge having a ton of privilege in my life. I agree that education is more expensive than it should be, that this cost has been burdening our young people too much over the past few decades, and that a return to our 1960s-ish policy of subsidizing most of the cost of a public university education would probably pay dividends to our economy going forward.
Where I get hung up on student loan forgiveness, as I alluded to above, is this:
Suppose Alice and Bob both got the same overpriced degree from the same overpriced state school three years ago. Suppose their financial position at graduation is identical: $30k of student loan debt, no assets to speak of. They both get entry-level positions at the same company, making the same salary. They both live frugal lives, putting half their salary away toward building their net worth.
Alice decides she would sleep much better at night having that student loan debt gone, so she puts that extra half of her salary toward her debt and pays it off this year. Bob looks at the interest rates and, similar to the "don't pay off your mortgage club" on this forum, decides he might do better investing. Over that same three-year period Bob pays the minimum on his student loans and puts the rest of his extra half of his salary into his 401(k) instead. The stock market has been doing great the past few years, so Bob's net worth is actually higher than Alice's by now.
By singling out current student loan holders we're saying that Bob is more deserving of government help than Alice, even though he's done better overall. We're saying that people who graduated 10 years ago and have struggled mightily to pay off their student loans on schedule (but finally did it this year!) are less deserving of government help than people who graduated last year in the same exact position. I don't buy it. I agree there are a lot of people who had to dig themselves into a big financial hole getting themselves educated enough to participate in the economy, and I disagree that current student loan balance is a very good proxy for how badly someone has been affected by this issue.
Here! Me! You are talking about me! I would be personally livid if a student loan forgiveness discharge took place. Not only is it not fair to people like me but it's not fair to those who couldn't afford to consider college in the first place. It would alienate a HUGE swaths of the population.
I don't know what the solution to the profound amounts of student debt that people are apparently drowning in, but this ain't it.
-
Forgiving student loans is a wealth transfer to those already in a position to do well for themselves because of the degree they obtained.
No one forced anyone to go to college and/or to take out student loans to pay for it.
its a terrible idea
Definitely.... one of the worst. I certainly hope it never happens. No one paid off my student loans for me. I worked to pay them off myself, just as I did all of my other loans. Let's get these young people started out taking responsibility for themselves instead of depending on other taxpayers to bail them out.
I'm down to only $100,000 of loans left to pay off. I might be able to afford to keep my head above water if I had one kid, by the time I'm 35. Being able to refinance some of the public loans I had down from ~15% interest helped early on. I'll take any easement I can get.
-
Here! Me! You are talking about me! I would be personally livid if a student loan forgiveness discharge took place. Not only is it not fair to people like me but it's not fair to those who couldn't afford to consider college in the first place. It would alienate a HUGE swaths of the population.
I'm not sure I really understand. My parents paid for zero of my college or living expenses. Hence why I have student loans, and a large amount of them. Can you please explain what section of people "couldn't afford to consider college"? People who couldn't get their parents to cosign on loans? Not trying to be a jerk, but legit understand. Loans have been given out so freely, that I feel like anyone could get them. I mean, that is one of the primary issues of this whole student loan problem. Loans were given out like candy and therefore tuition could increase out of control as a result.
-
I'm down to only $100,000 of loans left to pay off. I might be able to afford to keep my head above water if I had one kid, by the time I'm 35. Being able to refinance some of the public loans I had down from ~15% interest helped early on. I'll take any easement I can get.
Wow! In the last couple decades I thought the federal student loan rates only went up to 7.9% (grad plus which usually went down to 7.65 after auto-debit) or 6.8% for undergrad.
Highest I could find historically for federal student loans was 14% SLS loans (predecessor to federal PLUS) made between 10/1/1981-10/30/1982. I would hope that all of those student loans from the 80s are paid off.
https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/historical-federal-student-interest-rates-and-fees
@Ecky what kind of student loans did you have?
-
Here! Me! You are talking about me! I would be personally livid if a student loan forgiveness discharge took place. Not only is it not fair to people like me but it's not fair to those who couldn't (reasonably) afford to consider college in the first place. It would alienate a HUGE swaths of the population.
I'm not sure I really understand. My parents paid for zero of my college or living expenses. Hence why I have student loans, and a large amount of them. Can you please explain what section of people "couldn't afford to consider college"? People who couldn't get their parents to cosign on loans? Not trying to be a jerk, but legit understand. Loans have been given out so freely, that I feel like anyone could get them. I mean, that is one of the primary issues of this whole student loan problem. Loans were given out like candy and therefore tuition could increase out of control as a result.
There, I fixed it.
Edit (to sound less snarky): There are lots of people who cannot afford college because they were not born to families who can or who have family members willing to cosign on a loan. There are lots of people who did not have the resources to succeed academically (as a result of their community not being able to afford that) and never even got to think about college. There are also people who are responsible about understanding the huge cost of going to college and therefore choose other career pathways, because they reasonably assume they cannot afford to pay off student loans for half their life.
Basically I think this student loan forgiveness is alienating to all except the chunk of the (privileged) population that voluntarily signed on to student loan debt. Not good policy.
-
Here! Me! You are talking about me! I would be personally livid if a student loan forgiveness discharge took place. Not only is it not fair to people like me but it's not fair to those who couldn't (reasonably) afford to consider college in the first place. It would alienate a HUGE swaths of the population.
I'm not sure I really understand. My parents paid for zero of my college or living expenses. Hence why I have student loans, and a large amount of them. Can you please explain what section of people "couldn't afford to consider college"? People who couldn't get their parents to cosign on loans? Not trying to be a jerk, but legit understand. Loans have been given out so freely, that I feel like anyone could get them. I mean, that is one of the primary issues of this whole student loan problem. Loans were given out like candy and therefore tuition could increase out of control as a result.
There, I fixed it.
Edit (to sound less snarky): There are lots of people who cannot afford college because they were not born to families who can or who have family members willing to cosign on a loan. There are lots of people who did not have the resources to succeed academically (as a result of their community not being able to afford that) and never even got to think about college. There are also people who are responsible about understanding the huge cost of going to college and therefore choose other career pathways, because they reasonably assume they cannot afford to pay off student loans for half their life.
Basically I think this student loan forgiveness is alienating to all except the chunk of the (privileged) population that voluntarily signed on to student loan debt. Not good policy.
Very well put, I don't think this is a right/left issue at all. It's basically like saying the federal government will pay off your auto loan if it's for a Chevy or Ford only, or that if you had credit card debt in 2018, the federal government will give you a refund of that amount on your 2021 taxes, just completely arbitrary.
-
There are many government programs that are just as arbitrary, and many non privileged students who need student loans. The line must be drawn somewhere. Be jealous if you paid your own way, if you must. Then get over yourself and move on.
-
Need more options:
"make them dischargeable in bankruptcy"
"just eliminate the interest"
"maybe after we tackle x, y, and z"
I'm not against debt forgiveness but I think other things are a higher priority, such as universal healthcare, early childhood education, and parental leave. I think we need to work on bringing tuition down for current and future students too.
My choice would be to make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. Then there would be a way out for those who are truly suffering, but those who are able to pay would still pay. I would also be fine with pausing the interest for a longer time.
-
I don’t see how I am worse off is someone else’s debt is forgiven - and I put 3 kids through college without loans.
My dd has grad school debt and says that if it’s forgiven she’s going to med school. ;-)
-
Or do we just start forgiving any type of loan which causes a hardship?
There's a solution! Simply allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. This was the rule of law before the GOP changed it in 2006 on a money grab for the banks. I also think schools need skin in the game. They should have to pay the government (who guarantees most loans) 25-50% in claw back payments if they keep on accepting students who can't do the work in majors/masters programs/phd programs that won't get those kids a decent job.
In a bankruptcy though you generally have to give up most of your assets (you can keep some very basic things). How do you give up your education? Do you sign something that says you will never use the business degree in work?
Before the law was changed, it was a lot more common to rack up a big student loan debt and then discharge it early in your career through bankruptcy while you had few other assets.
Dischargeable non-collateralized debt would have a high default rate. Either interest rates would have to go up or taxpayers would have to be on the hook for defaults.
High default rate? There's already a high default rate. Just make it so you can't discharge your student debt EARLY in your career. Maybe a 10 year moratorium. For most folks, your student debt at 10 years is VERY different than the debt at graduation. If you can't dig out in 10 years, then you probably need the help. In regards to "taxpayers being on the hook", my solution is to have the colleges pay 50% back as a penalty as above.
-
There are many government programs that are just as arbitrary, and many non privileged students who need student loans. The line must be drawn somewhere. Be jealous if you paid your own way, if you must. Then get over yourself and move on.
Well, that IS where I draw a line. It's not about jealousy. I don't think I would be seriously negatively impacted by such a forgiveness program, but as someone else has said, I really do think that kind of money could be put to better use for more Americans in a more equitable way. If we are handing out money like candy we should be prioritizing on universal health care, early childhood education, and parental leave (as posted by @Morning Glory).
I am a proponent for equitable policy in ANY domain, not just college loan forgiveness. If you have examples of other arbitrary handouts, I would be interested to see if any of them are ones I would support- I doubt it though.
-
There are many government programs that are just as arbitrary, and many non privileged students who need student loans. The line must be drawn somewhere. Be jealous if you paid your own way, if you must. Then get over yourself and move on.
Amen to the bolded! Goverment programs are often about incentivizing behavior. Student loans encouraged students to go on to higher ed. Now millenials and zoomers aren't participating in the economy, loan forgiveness is a way to make it easier to participate.
Honestly, the more I dig into student loan forgiveness the more I think it makes sense from all sorts of angles. They should just rip the bandaid off and do it.
-
There are many government programs that are just as arbitrary, and many non privileged students who need student loans. The line must be drawn somewhere. Be jealous if you paid your own way, if you must. Then get over yourself and move on.
Amen to the bolded! Goverment programs are often about incentivizing behavior. Student loans encouraged students to go on to higher ed. Now millenials and zoomers aren't participating in the economy, loan forgiveness is a way to make it easier to participate.
Honestly, the more I dig into student loan forgiveness the more I think it makes sense from all sorts of angles. They should just rip the bandaid off and do it.
Yes, I used to be appalled by student loan forgiveness. But I've changed my tune over the years. I've realized it was mainly out of jealousy for severely sacrificing to pay my own loans. Govt programs aren't always perfectly targeted and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be.
Others say that some kids chose not to go to college because of the high costs. But there's also people like me, who chose to go to college and the cost started out reasonable (15k/year). But unexpected annual tuition increases of ~5k+ a year added significantly to the overall cost (tuition increases added at least 30k to my 4-year total not including interest). I met my DH in college, so in total we ended up with 60k more loans than we thought we would have going into it. Dropping out of college after you are a year or two in just isn't reasonable, since you'll be stuck with loans and no degree. At my college they purposefully made credits non-transferable. So you couldn't even transfer once tuition kept rising.
My point is, this is a very complicated issue. And people are cancelling the idea of it over very, very specific circumstances that might get forgiveness. But there are so many specifics to cover, it would be impossible to make a "perfect" program that only helps out those who need. Govt regulations and handouts are not inherently fair.
-
There are many government programs that are just as arbitrary, and many non privileged students who need student loans. The line must be drawn somewhere. Be jealous if you paid your own way, if you must. Then get over yourself and move on.
Amen to the bolded! Goverment programs are often about incentivizing behavior. Student loans encouraged students to go on to higher ed. Now millenials and zoomers aren't participating in the economy, loan forgiveness is a way to make it easier to participate.
Honestly, the more I dig into student loan forgiveness the more I think it makes sense from all sorts of angles. They should just rip the bandaid off and do it.
Yes, I used to be appalled by student loan forgiveness. But I've changed my tune over the years. I've realized it was mainly out of jealousy for severely sacrificing to pay my own loans. Govt programs aren't always perfectly targeted and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be.
Others say that some kids chose not to go to college because of the high costs. But there's also people like me, who chose to go to college and the cost started out reasonable (15k/year). But unexpected annual tuition increases of ~5k+ a year added significantly to the overall cost (tuition increases added at least 30k to my 4-year total not including interest). I met my DH in college, so in total we ended up with 60k more loans than we thought we would have going into it. Dropping out of college after you are a year or two in just isn't reasonable, since you'll be stuck with loans and no degree. At my college they purposefully made credits non-transferable. So you couldn't even transfer once tuition kept rising.
My point is, this is a very complicated issue. And people are cancelling the idea of it over very, very specific circumstances that might get forgiveness. But there are so many specifics to cover, it would be impossible to make a "perfect" program that only helps out those who need. Govt regulations and handouts are not inherently fair.
Hear Hear! Just because the system is rigged does not mean you can't DERIG it just a bit.
-
I would much rather see something more universal like a UBI or one time stimulus check than something that benefits only a select group of people. It seems unfair that people who paid off their loans early, never took out loans, or never went to college would get nothing.
Two point for this:
No. 1 - I think you are not factoring in how much of people's student loan debt loads are origination fees and interest. So you get 10k in loans for semester one, you get a check for 9600 to pay towards your tuition, fees, books, room and board or whatever, and the following day you owe 10001.37 because interest compounds daily, assuming a 5% rate.
Let me repeat that! Interest compounds daily. So - you can calculate what that borrower owes for that first semester when they graduate. somewhere between 12-13k I think just eyeballing. then there are the other loans.
Student loans are no longer just a way to help students get an education - it is an industry raking in billions in profit with many private and semi private companies in play in addition to the government. I think this is wrong.
No. 2 - the escalating costs of the education has been spiralling out of control. It's costs are inflated, in large part by whoever the student loan industry is enriching. Because they can. and then make more money off students. Education costs have increased by 145% since the 70's.
According to this site, https://www.nitrocollege.com/research/average-student-loan-debt, even after accounting for inflation education costs have more than doubled over that time period.
And one thing I don't want to hear is just go out and get scholarships or grants. There is no free lunch, and I'm tired of smug people talking about free rides. You know who pays for that? Other students who in fact end up paying even more than just for their own educations. Or tax payers. Or a combo.
Point 1: Interest is per diem, like it is on everything, and you exaggerate how it compounds. While you are in school most fed loans don't even accrue interest. There is a second type of student loan that accrues interest while you are in school but you only take that out if you absolutely have to. I never did and I took out $60k in student loans over 3 years.
Point 2: Agreed on escalating costs. That should be the priority to address imo.
Yeah, point 2 is important to improving the situation going forward. Tuition has dramatically outpaced inflation.
What happens to new students starting university in the coming years? Should they plan on getting their loans forgiven? Or will they have to pay them off?
-
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I just want to chime in here... I worked at least 2 jobs at a time (and often more) throughout college, 12-30 hours per week, and summer service industry jobs, all for $7.25-$10/hr, and I worked as an RA for room and board for two years, AND I finished my degree a year early. I went to a public state school - the best one in my state, but not the most expensive. I ate beans and rice and bought the bar soap off the bottom shelf. I didn't go out to bars or restaurants, ever. No spring break trips. Definitely no Canada Goose (I remember when I starting seeing those, wtf?) My mom got me a new coat at Costco once, that was nice. I still finished undergrad $50K in the hole. My various jobs barely covered the costs of my books and $200 "access codes" so I could do my homework each semester.
I hear this "just work and go to a state school!" sound bite all the time and it really rankles me. I don't know anyone from my school who pulled it off without a scholarship, and I ran with the other working class kids. Maybe other states have cheaper schools? One would have to have a truly exceptional work ethic (and good luck) to get out with both good grades and little debt with no outside help. 40 hours a week (at minimum wage) for 50 weeks would not even cover tuition and fees. (all of my university jobs paid the federal minimum wage, though I think they increased it to a "living wage" last year).
Anyway, I think a student loan forgiveness bill is a shitty bandaid for a shitty issue. I would love for my last $15K of debt to be wiped out, especially given how my university recently started giving full rides to students from my financial background (ouch). But I think finding a way to permanently lower the cost of university would be the best solution for everyone.
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
-
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I just want to chime in here... I worked at least 2 jobs at a time (and often more) throughout college, 12-30 hours per week, and summer service industry jobs, all for $7.25-$10/hr, and I worked as an RA for room and board for two years, AND I finished my degree a year early. I went to a public state school - the best one in my state, but not the most expensive. I ate beans and rice and bought the bar soap off the bottom shelf. I didn't go out to bars or restaurants, ever. No spring break trips. Definitely no Canada Goose (I remember when I starting seeing those, wtf?) My mom got me a new coat at Costco once, that was nice. I still finished undergrad $50K in the hole. My various jobs barely covered the costs of my books and $200 "access codes" so I could do my homework each semester.
I hear this "just work and go to a state school!" sound bite all the time and it really rankles me. I don't know anyone from my school who pulled it off without a scholarship, and I ran with the other working class kids. Maybe other states have cheaper schools? One would have to have a truly exceptional work ethic (and good luck) to get out with both good grades and little debt with no outside help. 40 hours a week (at minimum wage) for 50 weeks would not even cover tuition and fees. (all of my university jobs paid the federal minimum wage, though I think they increased it to a "living wage" last year).
Anyway, I think a student loan forgiveness bill is a shitty bandaid for a shitty issue. I would love for my last $15K of debt to be wiped out, especially given how my university recently started giving full rides to students from my financial background (ouch). But I think finding a way to permanently lower the cost of university would be the best solution for everyone.
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
I agree with everyone that comprehensive student loan and college education reform is necessary as part of this whole topic of student loan forgiveness.... BUTTTTTT, do you have the votes for this?
We can't even pass raising the federal minimum wage above 7.25$/hour.
Part of why Biden is prosing 10K student loan forgiveness is because this is WHAT HE CAN DO without 60 votes in the Senate. Don't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
-
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I just want to chime in here... I worked at least 2 jobs at a time (and often more) throughout college, 12-30 hours per week, and summer service industry jobs, all for $7.25-$10/hr, and I worked as an RA for room and board for two years, AND I finished my degree a year early. I went to a public state school - the best one in my state, but not the most expensive. I ate beans and rice and bought the bar soap off the bottom shelf. I didn't go out to bars or restaurants, ever. No spring break trips. Definitely no Canada Goose (I remember when I starting seeing those, wtf?) My mom got me a new coat at Costco once, that was nice. I still finished undergrad $50K in the hole. My various jobs barely covered the costs of my books and $200 "access codes" so I could do my homework each semester.
I hear this "just work and go to a state school!" sound bite all the time and it really rankles me. I don't know anyone from my school who pulled it off without a scholarship, and I ran with the other working class kids. Maybe other states have cheaper schools? One would have to have a truly exceptional work ethic (and good luck) to get out with both good grades and little debt with no outside help. 40 hours a week (at minimum wage) for 50 weeks would not even cover tuition and fees. (all of my university jobs paid the federal minimum wage, though I think they increased it to a "living wage" last year).
Anyway, I think a student loan forgiveness bill is a shitty bandaid for a shitty issue. I would love for my last $15K of debt to be wiped out, especially given how my university recently started giving full rides to students from my financial background (ouch). But I think finding a way to permanently lower the cost of university would be the best solution for everyone.
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
I agree with everyone that comprehensive student loan and college education reform is necessary as part of this whole topic of student loan forgiveness.... BUTTTTTT, do you have the votes for this?
We can't even pass raising the federal minimum wage above 7.25$/hour.
Part of why Biden is prosing 10K student loan forgiveness is because this is WHAT HE CAN DO without 60 votes in the Senate. Don't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Oh yeah, I voted pro on the $50K forgiveness. It's what I would have wanted four years ago, and it's what people I care about need. And if it pisses some people off, hopefully it lights a fire to push more effective, efficient reforms.
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
Eh, I know some pretty broke lawyers and engineers. I know people with Computer Science degrees who could never get a decent job and moved on to something else.
I also know my dd who makes a very decent salary with degrees in English and theology. ;-)
-
I definitely oppose it. These are people that should be able to pay back their loans and have their whole careers ahead of them to do it.
Why don't we just pay off everyone's mortgage and all of their cars? How about for older people that don't have a lot of their career ahead of them to pay down debt. Let's just give everyone free money whether they need it or not.
Ten years ago, I never would have expected anyone to seriously propose this craziness of paying off student loan debt and have any significant amount of people actually support it beyond the people who personally benefit from it while passing their debt on to the rest of us taxpayers, who are not interested in paying it off for them.
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
Eh, I know some pretty broke lawyers and engineers. I know people with Computer Science degrees who could never get a decent job and moved on to something else.
I also know my dd who makes a very decent salary with degrees in English and theology. ;-)
Fair enough.
Then it must be the law and engineering degrees that are overvalued. We should probably focus on reducing the costs of getting a STEM degree and letting those greedy big salary theology majors fend for themselves with their high rolling jobs.
-
Just get rid of the student loan program. The whole reason the cost of college is so astronomical is because you can use student loans to pay for it. Get rid of the loans and the cost of college comes down. Just a theory. Or do something like an income share agreement for a set amount of time. Something like the Purdue University Back a Boiler program they take a set amount of your income for so many years to pay for your education. The great thing about this is it doesn't matter if you are not making that great of money when you are starting out they just take the same percent.
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
Eh, I know some pretty broke lawyers and engineers. I know people with Computer Science degrees who could never get a decent job and moved on to something else.
I also know my dd who makes a very decent salary with degrees in English and theology. ;-)
Fair enough.
Then it must be the law and engineering degrees that are overvalued. We should probably focus on reducing the costs of getting a STEM degree and letting those greedy big salary theology majors fend for themselves with their high rolling jobs.
A lot of science degrees are pretty useless at the undergrad level. If you don’t go on to a graduate degree you are on the hook for your loans.
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
Eh, I know some pretty broke lawyers and engineers. I know people with Computer Science degrees who could never get a decent job and moved on to something else.
I also know my dd who makes a very decent salary with degrees in English and theology. ;-)
Fair enough.
Then it must be the law and engineering degrees that are overvalued. We should probably focus on reducing the costs of getting a STEM degree and letting those greedy big salary theology majors fend for themselves with their high rolling jobs.
A lot of science degrees are pretty useless at the undergrad level. If you don’t go on to a graduate degree you are on the hook for your loans.
Quantify 'a lot' for me.
Everything I've read says that STEM degrees average much higher salaries than arts degrees. Some degrees do far better with graduate studies . . . but the majority (including nearly all engineering courses) will do just fine without.
This isn't an attack on the arts or an argument that science is the best. Arts are essential to our society. In my first example I explicitly took the highest average paying degrees (which happen to all be science related) and compared them with the lowest average paying degrees (which happen to all be arts related) . . . and was putting forth the idea that the cost of a degree should probably reflect the ability of a person to repay that cost post graduation.
Average salary of a Drama and Theater Arts degree is under 40k. Average salary for the majority of Engineering degrees is over 80k. It doesn't make sense that a degree in one should cost anywhere near a degree in the other. It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage people to chase whatever area of study that they want to learn - but it would be nice to stop punishing the folks who are not likely to be as prosperous with the same levels of debt as those who are probably going to be rich.
We also need to stop lying to people about their post graduation prospects. Is it possible to have a shit career after graduating with a STEM degree? Sure. Is it possible to become rich after graduating as a Women's Studies major? Sure . . . nothing is impossible. But are these scenarios likely? Hell no. Not according to the numbers.
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
Very few persons have the IQ necessary to get a degree and be successful in Engineering, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . .
I am not saying anything about your post is "wrong."
-
A college degree is not at all a ticket to a middle class life anymore. It shouldn't be priced like it is.
A good college degree is a ticket to a middle class life.
Engineering, Pharmeceutical Sciences, Genetics, Materials Science, Applied Math, Computer Science, etc. . . it's hard to fuck up earing reasonable money with a career based on this education. The problem is that there exist many college degrees of there that doesn't hold. Drama and Theater Arts, Visual and Performance Arts, Fine Arts, Composition and Rhetoric, Women's Studies, etc. . . it's difficult to use these degrees to make money. Doesn't mean they're without value, but the price of these degrees that won't get you paid are way inflated over a fair market rate.
Eh, I know some pretty broke lawyers and engineers. I know people with Computer Science degrees who could never get a decent job and moved on to something else.
I also know my dd who makes a very decent salary with degrees in English and theology. ;-)
Fair enough.
Then it must be the law and engineering degrees that are overvalued. We should probably focus on reducing the costs of getting a STEM degree and letting those greedy big salary theology majors fend for themselves with their high rolling jobs.
A lot of science degrees are pretty useless at the undergrad level. If you don’t go on to a graduate degree you are on the hook for your loans.
Quantify 'a lot' for me.
Everything I've read says that STEM degrees average much higher salaries than arts degrees. Some degrees do far better with graduate studies . . . but the majority (including nearly all engineering courses) will do just fine without.
This isn't an attack on the arts or an argument that science is the best. Arts are essential to our society. In my first example I explicitly took the highest average paying degrees (which happen to all be science related) and compared them with the lowest average paying degrees (which happen to all be arts related) . . . and was putting forth the idea that the cost of a degree should probably reflect the ability of a person to repay that cost post graduation.
Average salary of a Drama and Theater Arts degree is under 40k. Average salary for the majority of Engineering degrees is over 80k. It doesn't make sense that a degree in one should cost anywhere near a degree in the other. It doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage people to chase whatever area of study that they want to learn - but it would be nice to stop punishing the folks who are not likely to be as prosperous with the same levels of debt as those who are probably going to be rich.
We also need to stop lying to people about their post graduation prospects. Is it possible to have a shit career after graduating with a STEM degree? Sure. Is it possible to become rich after graduating as a Women's Studies major? Sure . . . nothing is impossible. But are these scenarios likely? Hell no. Not according to the numbers.
It’s the “science” part that is misleading, IMO - a 4 year science degree rarely positions you for a well paid entry level job.
But the thing that I have most learned from this group is that tech jobs are incredibly awful, which is why they have to pay well. I would never recommend that anyone pursue a degree in that unless the truly do have a passion for, because it seems to be awful work.
I think it’s way better to make $40k at work you enjoy than $80k at something that is constantly described as “soul sucking”.
-
Everything I've read says that STEM degrees average much higher salaries than arts degrees.
Sure, but "STEM" is a pretty meaningless categorization. Math is not the same as chemistry is not the same as nuclear engineering. Someone who earns a degree in one of these fields is very much not interchangeable with someone who earns a degree in a different STEM field, and the pay can vary pretty wildly between them. The average being high across the "STEM" categorization says something about many of the fields in that group, but it absolutely does not mean that every one of those degrees has a similar likelihood of being a ticket to an early retirement.
A friend who studied physics explained to me once that an undergraduate degree in physics is pretty limiting. You're qualified to be a high school physics teacher (not exactly a lucrative career), or a lab assistant washing glassware or something (also doesn't pay well). You can maybe talk your way into an entry-level job in software or engineering (which do pay well), but your chances of getting the job and being prepared for it would be better with a different degree. In essence, if you don't want to be a high school teacher or stick it out through the PhD to become a Real Scientist, you should probably pick something else to study.
-
Everything I've read says that STEM degrees average much higher salaries than arts degrees.
Sure, but "STEM" is a pretty meaningless categorization. Math is not the same as chemistry is not the same as nuclear engineering. Someone who earns a degree in one of these fields is very much not interchangeable with someone who earns a degree in a different STEM field, and the pay can vary pretty wildly between them. The average being high across the "STEM" categorization says something about many of the fields in that group, but it absolutely does not mean that every one of those degrees has a similar likelihood of being a ticket to an early retirement.
A friend who studied physics explained to me once that an undergraduate degree in physics is pretty limiting. You're qualified to be a high school physics teacher (not exactly a lucrative career), or a lab assistant washing glassware or something (also doesn't pay well). You can maybe talk your way into an entry-level job in software or engineering (which do pay well), but your chances of getting the job and being prepared for it would be better with a different degree. In essence, if you don't want to be a high school teacher or stick it out through the PhD to become a Real Scientist, you should probably pick something else to study.
+1
Engineering/software folks dramatically impact the "STEM" degree compensation.
-
If this goes through and they don't go back many years and give credits to those who paid off their loans like responsible citizens (my wife and I being among them) I'll be pretty pissed. Better yet, just give EVERYONE some money.
-
I'm down to only $100,000 of loans left to pay off. I might be able to afford to keep my head above water if I had one kid, by the time I'm 35. Being able to refinance some of the public loans I had down from ~15% interest helped early on. I'll take any easement I can get.
Wow! In the last couple decades I thought the federal student loan rates only went up to 7.9% (grad plus which usually went down to 7.65 after auto-debit) or 6.8% for undergrad.
Highest I could find historically for federal student loans was 14% SLS loans (predecessor to federal PLUS) made between 10/1/1981-10/30/1982. I would hope that all of those student loans from the 80s are paid off.
https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/historical-federal-student-interest-rates-and-fees
@Ecky what kind of student loans did you have?
Apologies, I posted some misinformation here. Looking back on them, the high interest rate loans were Sallie Mae Smart Option, which were private loans, I had loans ranging from 12-15%
-
But the thing that I have most learned from this group is that tech jobs are incredibly awful, which is why they have to pay well. I would never recommend that anyone pursue a degree in that unless the truly do have a passion for, because it seems to be awful work.
You're the first person I have heard say that.
Programming and architecting a system requires an incredible amount of creativity. It requires an awful amount of initial mental investment to become good at it. That is true for anyone - the teen hacker who coded from his teens and the adult learner who learned coding in her 20's and 30's. I should know because I was the former and my DW is the later. Once you are over the *extremely steep* learning curve, programming is extremely rewarding.
The above does not mean you can't get stuck with mind-numbing "process" jobs in tech, or that you won't have to deal with political bs. But that is true for any job. With a tech job, the core part of the job itself is very rewarding for almost anyone who is good enough to get a job in a decent paying organization and keep it!
Yes, if you can't get over the "extremely steep" learning curve, and still try to survive in tech, then your life will suck. The tell generally is someone who has learned to debug, but can't build a new, reasonably complex system from ground up on his/her own given the appropriate amount of time. I have even worked with some of them. They don't tend to last very long at a single place and their resumes tend to start showing the pattern. When presented with a resume showing this kind of a pattern, I generally tell HR to decline the candidate without even interviewing him.
-
If this goes through and they don't go back many years and give credits to those who paid off their loans like responsible citizens (my wife and I being among them) I'll be pretty pissed. Better yet, just give EVERYONE some money.
This. I and some family members made the choice that we couldn't afford 4 year and did a 2 year in demand degree instead and still worked while in school above full time to pay for it.
The tax payers shouldn't be required to bail others out.
To make it real fun, just over night remove the bankruptcy clause and make student loans bankruptable. - everything else falls in line. (There are issues, but my point is, the fundamental issue needs to be fixed before we consider bailing out anyone)
-
If this goes through and they don't go back many years and give credits to those who paid off their loans like responsible citizens (my wife and I being among them) I'll be pretty pissed. Better yet, just give EVERYONE some money.
This. I and some family members made the choice that we couldn't afford 4 year and did a 2 year in demand degree instead and still worked while in school above full time to pay for it.
The tax payers shouldn't be required to bail others out.
To make it real fun, just over night remove the bankruptcy clause and make student loans bankruptable. - everything else falls in line. (There are issues, but my point is, the fundamental issue needs to be fixed before we consider bailing out anyone)
This is the right way to fix the student loan problem. We have a long standing well tested system for how people who borrow too much can be given another chance at life that we KNOW works reasonably well. We have no idea what king of animosity it will create to arbitrarily pick winners and losers in a forgiveness program. I expect it will be another wedge issue dividing those who are helped and those who are not. How could it not infuriate the carpenter framing a house in the dead of winter or the mechanic covered in oil to hear their neighbor who partied through college just got a free $10k?
-
As someone approaching graduation with a big pile of student loans, I'm not really in support. If it happens I'll certainly be grateful for the personal benefit I'll receive, but it's a terribly inefficient transfer. Tons of people living in abject poverty have no student loans, tons of people with student loans are quite wealthy. And it sets a terrible precedent if loans are forgiven but the cost going forward is not addressed. There should be more stimulus payments, which people like me can certainly use to pay off our loans faster. And public colleges and universities should be subsidized to be tuition-free.
Addressing currently outstanding loans and then burying the next generation of students under the same burden is a complete disaster waiting to happen. Folding some loan forgiveness into a bill that also eliminates tuition could be reasonable, but that can't be accomplished in executive order, and it's still spending a ton of money that doesn't benefit huge swaths of people living in poverty.
-
As someone approaching graduation with a big pile of student loans, I'm not really in support. If it happens I'll certainly be grateful for the personal benefit I'll receive, but it's a terribly inefficient transfer. Tons of people living in abject poverty have no student loans, tons of people with student loans are quite wealthy. And it sets a terrible precedent if loans are forgiven but the cost going forward is not addressed. There should be more stimulus payments, which people like me can certainly use to pay off our loans faster. And public colleges and universities should be subsidized to be tuition-free.
Addressing currently outstanding loans and then burying the next generation of students under the same burden is a complete disaster waiting to happen. Folding some loan forgiveness into a bill that also eliminates tuition could be reasonable, but that can't be accomplished in executive order, and it's still spending a ton of money that doesn't benefit huge swaths of people living in poverty.
Obviously other aspects of college costs need to be addressed, but objective of student loan forgiveness is not to help people in abject poverty. It's mostly aimed at helping the middle class (which in turn stimulates the economy). There's no reason why every program needs to address abject poverty.
-
It’s the “science” part that is misleading, IMO - a 4 year science degree rarely positions you for a well paid entry level job.
But the thing that I have most learned from this group is that tech jobs are incredibly awful, which is why they have to pay well. I would never recommend that anyone pursue a degree in that unless the truly do have a passion for, because it seems to be awful work.
I think it’s way better to make $40k at work you enjoy than $80k at something that is constantly described as “soul sucking”.
I'm in general agreement* with everything you're writing here . . . and still think my idea stands.
Degrees should cost something that reflects what people who earn the degrees will be able to make over their careers. If there are specific underperforming science degrees then they should cost less too! But yes, way better to work a job you enjoy and make 40k than do something you hate for 80k. My argument is that the cost of education barrier to the 40k job should be reduced. Is this controversial somehow?
*Not entirely in agreement that tech jobs are awful - although some certainly can be.
-
Moral arguments are pointless in this situation. For every sad story about someone who was pressured by their high school counselor or parents to go to college despite cost or who was 18 and just didn't know better or whatever, you have a story of someone who worked hard to get the scholarships to pay for all or most of it or who worked their butt off to pay it down afterward or whatever (I mean, even if your parents paid for it, they likely had to put in some hard work to get their money).
Moral arguments aren't going to work because you're going to believe what you believe in terms of what's fair or not in this situation, and it's likely that that's going to be based on your own experiences in regards to college. We're going to argue around in circles and no one is ever going to be convinced. So again, pointless.
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
-
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
+100 this is what I don't really understand about the whole thing.
-
Everything I've read says that STEM degrees average much higher salaries than arts degrees.
Sure, but "STEM" is a pretty meaningless categorization. Math is not the same as chemistry is not the same as nuclear engineering. Someone who earns a degree in one of these fields is very much not interchangeable with someone who earns a degree in a different STEM field, and the pay can vary pretty wildly between them. The average being high across the "STEM" categorization says something about many of the fields in that group, but it absolutely does not mean that every one of those degrees has a similar likelihood of being a ticket to an early retirement.
A friend who studied physics explained to me once that an undergraduate degree in physics is pretty limiting. You're qualified to be a high school physics teacher (not exactly a lucrative career), or a lab assistant washing glassware or something (also doesn't pay well). You can maybe talk your way into an entry-level job in software or engineering (which do pay well), but your chances of getting the job and being prepared for it would be better with a different degree. In essence, if you don't want to be a high school teacher or stick it out through the PhD to become a Real Scientist, you should probably pick something else to study.
Can confirm. My undergrad marine biology degree wasn't a great choice. But it was fun and I'm probably more well-rounded for it. The computer science degree that I got later on is what pays the bills. Luckily, I managed to get out both times without loans.
-
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
+100 this is what I don't really understand about the whole thing.
I agree, with the 8 month extension that was recently passed, that is a year and a half of zero required payments and zero accrued interest. That is huge! Whether you're having a hard time making ends meet during the pandemic or doing alright but using the time to get ahead and make principal-only payments, that is a major boon to the student loan holder group - of which I've been a member for too long. I'm hopeful with this extension, and any other extensions there may be in future, that there is no student loan forgiveness and that any forgiveness would come in the form of something accessible to a much larger group of Americans (i.e. unrelated to student loan debt) coupled with some systematic changes for future loans/tuition costs.
-
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
i like a lot of this, focusing on the intent of the student loan payoff is important, basically stimulating the economy allowing more spending on things and not spending on student loans, at least for the consumer sucker.
I also think and have previously stated that we have to not alienate those who didnt go to college, as this is a handout to a minority of USA citizens who comparatively likely dont need it.
a UBI and revamp of the college education system would likely be a better option. UBI gets everyone spending, but thats another can of worms that may or may not be a good idea.
Now if only Biden would read this post before making a decision
+100 this is what I don't really understand about the whole thing.
-
https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/25/undercounting-covid-19-deaths-greatest-in-pro-trump-areas-analysis-shows/
Very interesting analysis discussing undercounting of excess deaths (comparing Urban to Mixed to Rural areas).
Their conclusion? If you don't look for Covid deaths, you won't find any!
I think this was posted in the wrong thread? lol still interesting though...
-
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
My coworkers were discussing this morning - the state I live in had more deaths from drug overdoses last year than from Covid - a massive spike in overdose deaths from the previous year. My supervisor commented, "what did you think was going to happen when you gave everyone $1200 and told them to stay home from work?"
I don't doubt part of it is from despair, but perhaps it's worth considering the adage about learning to fish.
-
I like the idea of forgiving all of the interest and setting future interest at zero.
For years, the government took excessive interest for loans. My son's Stafford loans are all in the 6% range. On top of that, they came with a 1.04% up front "load" that most people don't realize.
-
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
My coworkers were discussing this morning - the state I live in had more deaths from drug overdoses last year than from Covid - a massive spike in overdose deaths from the previous year. My supervisor commented, "what did you think was going to happen when you gave everyone $1200 and told them to stay home from work?"
I don't doubt part of it is from despair, but perhaps it's worth considering the adage about learning to fish.
I think this is a really off-the-mark and insensitive take. People don't overdose on opioids because they're irresponsible and partying too hard. Opioid overdoses are called "deaths of despair" for a reason. People turn to addictive behaviors, including addictive drugs, out of depression. The same situation that led to the government giving out stimulus checks has ruined countless peoples lives. Many who were already struggling with depression lost social connections and support networks they needed to keep their lives together. People turn to opioids when they feel their life is so terrible that their best and most rational option is just to numb themselves out, to escape. If we want to deal with the opioid epidemic, we need to be asking what's so terrible that these people are escaping from?
Sure, many of these people could, from an outside perspective, take actions to reduce their suffering. Those things are easier said than done when you're talking about someone in a deep depression.
-
The only arguments that matter are arguments about how it will work to stimulate the economy/help citizens that are in need or whatever in comparison to other ways the money could be spent. There is 1.6 trillion dollars in student loan debt. We are discussing something where the U.S. government would be poised to spend 1.6 trillion dollars or maybe a trillion if you forgive $50k or 400 million if it's $10k - wild guesses, but you get the point. Why is it better to spend the money on this than a stimulus being given to every 18 year old and older citizen? Or maybe a stimulus for every 18 year old and up citizen with a household income of $100k or less or $50k or less or whatever? Forgiving student loans would benefit people who need it and a lot who either don't or who could, if they chose, prioritize paying it off with sacrifices that they are choosing not to make (or are in the process of making but haven't finished). This is a targeted benefit that will help people who tend to have better jobs than people who are not in this category. Why is this particular thing the best use money?
My coworkers were discussing this morning - the state I live in had more deaths from drug overdoses last year than from Covid - a massive spike in overdose deaths from the previous year. My supervisor commented, "what did you think was going to happen when you gave everyone $1200 and told them to stay home from work?"
I don't doubt part of it is from despair, but perhaps it's worth considering the adage about learning to fish.
I think this is a really off-the-mark and insensitive take. People don't overdose on opioids because they're irresponsible and partying too hard. Opioid overdoses are called "deaths of despair" for a reason. People turn to addictive behaviors, including addictive drugs, out of depression. The same situation that led to the government giving out stimulus checks has ruined countless peoples lives. Many who were already struggling with depression lost social connections and support networks they needed to keep their lives together. People turn to opioids when they feel their life is so terrible that their best and most rational option is just to numb themselves out, to escape. If we want to deal with the opioid epidemic, we need to be asking what's so terrible that these people are escaping from?
Sure, many of these people could, from an outside perspective, take actions to reduce their suffering. Those things are easier said than done when you're talking about someone in a deep depression.
Thank you Log!!!! The opioid problem was bad to begin with, due to numerous causes.
Now you have EMS and hospitals overwhelmed with Covid, fewer social connections to notice if someone is off the wagon, increased loneliness and despair (more likely to die of overdose if alone while using), closure of support services, less focus on education regarding narcan (Covid taking up all the public service announcements), etc. It's a shit storm.
-
College students do not have to go to private schools, wear Canada Goose parkas, carry iPhone 11s, eat sushi for lunch and have Starbucks three times a day. You don't need to take out ridiculous loans if you work in the summer, live frugally and attend a state school and/or community college or a trade school. A loan forgiveness program would simply mean that the smarter more mustachian students are paying for both their own modest loans as well as (through taxes) the extravagant college degrees and lifestyles of others.
I just want to chime in here... I worked at least 2 jobs at a time (and often more) throughout college, 12-30 hours per week, and summer service industry jobs, all for $7.25-$10/hr, and I worked as an RA for room and board for two years, AND I finished my degree a year early. I went to a public state school - the best one in my state, but not the most expensive. I ate beans and rice and bought the bar soap off the bottom shelf. I didn't go out to bars or restaurants, ever. No spring break trips. Definitely no Canada Goose (I remember when I starting seeing those, wtf?) My mom got me a new coat at Costco once, that was nice. I still finished undergrad $50K in the hole. My various jobs barely covered the costs of my books and $200 "access codes" so I could do my homework each semester.
I don't know how you managed that. My wife graduated in 2014 with only ~$15k in debt, simply because she wasn't able to work during her last year due to having to do student teaching as part of her degree.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
Umm, absolutely not. Not a way to approach the very real problem of gender pay inequity. For so many reasons. I hope you are joking.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
Umm, absolutely not. Not a way to approach the very real problem of gender pay inequity. For so many reasons. I hope you are joking.
Yeah it would be weird to do it by women. I might feel like a woman till I finish school. Similar to taxes and other models, based on income would be more fair.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
What an odd statement to make. I can tell you realize it was odd or at least controversial because you reinforced it with an all caps "FACT"
Yes, women do make less than men, but adding FACT at the end of a factual statement doesn't make your proposition a good idea just because of a factual statement you feel is related to it.
Why is what you said any different than me saying, "Men should pay less than women because they live shorter lives and therefore they have fewer years to make money off of their degree."? Both men living fewer years and women making less are facts, neither has anything to do with the cost of college education, and both reflect complicated issues outside of the college framework that it makes little sense to address with college costs....
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
What an odd statement to make. I can tell you realize it was odd or at least controversial because you reinforced it with an all caps "FACT"
Yes, women do make less than men, but adding FACT at the end of a factual statement doesn't make your proposition a good idea just because of a factual statement you feel is related to it.
Why is what you said any different than me saying, "Men should pay less than women because they live shorter lives and therefore they have fewer years to make money off of their degree."? Both men living fewer years and women making less are facts, neither has anything to do with the cost of college education, and both reflect complicated issues outside of the college framework that it makes little sense to address with college costs....
Also, it would likely run afoul of the constitution and, even if implemented, have the opposite of the intended effect by depressing the value of women's education and therefore earning potential.
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
I saw that and was relieved. 50K would be a hard sell overall, and with Biden not supporting it, I would think it's very unlikely to happen.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
What an odd statement to make. I can tell you realize it was odd or at least controversial because you reinforced it with an all caps "FACT"
Yes, women do make less than men, but adding FACT at the end of a factual statement doesn't make your proposition a good idea just because of a factual statement you feel is related to it.
Why is what you said any different than me saying, "Men should pay less than women because they live shorter lives and therefore they have fewer years to make money off of their degree."? Both men living fewer years and women making less are facts, neither has anything to do with the cost of college education, and both reflect complicated issues outside of the college framework that it makes little sense to address with college costs....
I guess you might find it odd if you're a man. It's just infuriating when you're a women. Paying the same for education to get paid less for the same work, less opportunities for advancement & don't get me started on the pink taxes.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
What an odd statement to make. I can tell you realize it was odd or at least controversial because you reinforced it with an all caps "FACT"
Yes, women do make less than men, but adding FACT at the end of a factual statement doesn't make your proposition a good idea just because of a factual statement you feel is related to it.
Why is what you said any different than me saying, "Men should pay less than women because they live shorter lives and therefore they have fewer years to make money off of their degree."? Both men living fewer years and women making less are facts, neither has anything to do with the cost of college education, and both reflect complicated issues outside of the college framework that it makes little sense to address with college costs....
Also, it would likely run afoul of the constitution and, even if implemented, have the opposite of the intended effect by depressing the value of women's education and therefore earning potential.
Paying women less for the same work should be unconstitutional
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
Thanks for linking.
I like the proposal of free community college.
-
Maybe I'm super uneducated - but in my personal experience I have not seen one example of women making less for the same work. Male vs female in the exact same role with the exact same performance and position at the same company, I've never seen a woman make less apples to apples.
Oh it happens. Here's one example https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7783573/Joe-Biden-paid-female-Senate-staffers-men-DECADES-analysis-finds.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7783573/Joe-Biden-paid-female-Senate-staffers-men-DECADES-analysis-finds.html) but at least this employer was getting better more recently
-
I don't know exactly what a senate staffer does but is it not possible the two groups were performing different levels of task requiring different skill sets and those skills are compensates at different levels?
Sorry @Kroaler , but can you take this topic elsewhere?
I don't think a thread dedicated to Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness or lack thereof is the proper setting to even start to get into the complexities of the very real pay gap that still exists in many industries for a host of reasons explained and unexplained.
-
I don't know exactly what a senate staffer does but is it not possible the two groups were performing different levels of task requiring different skill sets and those skills are compensates at different levels?
Yeah, let's take this discussion elsewhere and keep this on topic.
And believe me, I'd love to talk this up, as one white man to another, but this isn't the place.
Thanks.
Toque.
-
My 2 cents.
I'm generally in favor of Loan forgiveness/let it be included in bankruptcy, but I worry it doesn't fix the fundamental problem & it'll be the same again the following years.
My thoughts
The For Profit Colleges need to be held accountable - get your money back if you can't get a job in your field in a few years or something.
Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT
Loans shouldn't be more than mortgage rates - gouging kids is unacceptable
kids who worked & were immensely frugal to avoid huge college debt should get some tax benefits too ie make college tuition tax deductible in the future.
My experience with college tuition payments in Australia I think are a good model. I was able to defer my tuition until after I finished college and it was paid via taxes only after I reached a salary of $50k a year. It wasn't astronomically high & didn't hurt me because it could be spread out over many years via taxes without too much burden.
In addition to above I think we have an event making an immediate difference arguable. A wipe of a lot of this debt would boost the economy for the next fews years as these young adults can be free to consume more instead of this crazy debt.
What an odd statement to make. I can tell you realize it was odd or at least controversial because you reinforced it with an all caps "FACT"
Yes, women do make less than men, but adding FACT at the end of a factual statement doesn't make your proposition a good idea just because of a factual statement you feel is related to it.
Why is what you said any different than me saying, "Men should pay less than women because they live shorter lives and therefore they have fewer years to make money off of their degree."? Both men living fewer years and women making less are facts, neither has anything to do with the cost of college education, and both reflect complicated issues outside of the college framework that it makes little sense to address with college costs....
I guess you might find it odd if you're a man. It's just infuriating when you're a women. Paying the same for education to get paid less for the same work, less opportunities for advancement & don't get me started on the pink taxes.
Um....no. I didn't say that women getting paid more was an odd statement. I said that your statement was an odd statement, and in its entirety, it is an odd statement- "Women should pay less, since they earn less - FACT." Women earning less is not the part that is odd. The part that is odd is that you think women, in general, earning less should mean that college should cost less for them for some reason. Judging from the rest of what you said, this is an issue you are clearly passionate about, which is fine. What you didn't do in your original post or in your follow up was explain why women earning less means that colleges should charge less. There are quite a few legitimate grievances out there. The presence of a legitimate grievance doesn't mean that any particular assigned way of addressing the grievance is a good idea or makes sense. As I mentioned before, I'm not denying women are paid less, but it's a complex issue, certainly not caused by colleges. I find it odd and a bad idea to try to address it by making colleges charge women less.
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
Yeah, I had heard her supported a lower amount before. But that's still $10,000 too much. People need to learn to take responsibilities for their own choices. There's plenty of time left for people to pay back their own student loans without expecting other taxpayers to pay for them.
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
Yeah, I had heard her supported a lower amount before. But that's still $10,000 too much. People need to learn to take responsibilities for their own choices. There's plenty of time left for people to pay back their own student loans without expecting other taxpayers to pay for them.
I'm not super excited about the 10k; that's for sure. I am happy it's less than 50k, and as an overarching thing, I'm happy that Biden's actually stood up against the more progressive factions. I had assumed he would go along with pretty much whatever the more progressive voices told him to do.
-
It's not even in the draft stimulus bill yet... For now the 10k is pure vaporware with a couple high profile cheerleaders.
-
It's not even in the draft stimulus bill yet... For now the 10k is pure vaporware with a couple high profile cheerleaders.
So, I'm assuming doing it as an executive order is completely off the table? I had heard that bandied about some in the primaries at least.
-
It's not even in the draft stimulus bill yet... For now the 10k is pure vaporware with a couple high profile cheerleaders.
So, I'm assuming doing it as an executive order is completely off the table? I had heard that bandied about some in the primaries at least.
Biden has already made it very clear he would much rather have Congress act. Fact check me on this please, but as far as I can tell, he has never clearly indicated that he would sign an executive order, it's people on his left flank putting words in his mouth and acting offended when he "reneges".
It's possible that he would be convinced to act by executive order, but then lawsuits will be filed before the ink is dry. Terrible optics.
-
I would love to have the last $10,000 of my student loans paid for me. It can be the nation’s “thank you” to me for doing great service for the public. And I will graciously accept the thanks.
-
And I would love to be given a $10k refund on the loans that I paid in full. And the people that didn't go to college at all because of the cost would love a free $10k too.
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
Yeah, I had heard her supported a lower amount before. But that's still $10,000 too much. People need to learn to take responsibilities for their own choices. There's plenty of time left for people to pay back their own student loans without expecting other taxpayers to pay for them.
Yeah, let's have people take responsibility for the predatory lending schemes and privatization of formerly publicly backed programs which enabled the absurd increase in college tuition, directly benefitting everyone but the students going to the colleges and universities and the part-time untenured faculty who do the gruntwork of teaching them. All under the pervasive narrative that "one must go to college to get a good job" which turned out to be one of the biggest self-fulfilling prophecies on the '70s and '80s.
There are plenty of people out there who knowingly went to a particular school and spent their school years doing fuckall to get a degree that would actually set themselves up for success.
There's also plenty of people who worked hard in school under the assumption that their chosen major would allow them to break into the working world only to find that entry level positions are only awarded to those who had 'connections' (be it internships that they couldn't afford to participate in, or networking events they had no real way to getting invited to).
For every dumbass who spent 4 years in a fraternity drinking his way through a communications degree, there's another 2-3 people who either "pursued their passion"* and/or worked to get an entry level STEM bachelor's to find at the end of it that the real opportunities are locked behind a PHD and 10 years of menial forced labor working for the next grant.
*Whether or not this happened to you, this was a very common narrative that I was introduced to in high school - that you'd have the best chance of success in life if you went to school for the things you loved rather than for something that would have allowed you a good paying position. It's the exact narrative that colleges and universities use as propaganda to bring even more students (and competition for "limited enrollment opportunities") into their halls to justify the bloated rolodex of degrees they offer and locking plenty of people into permanent, lifelong debt to that university.
I say this all as someone who will make my final student loan payment this year, a private loan no less - I do not stand to benefit from Biden's program, I am not eligible for PSLF, and my loan interest hasn't been 'paused' because of the pandemic.
My brother, on the other hand, finally graduated from his PA program. He is smarter than I will ever be. He graduated top 5% of his class, and will be well over $100k in debt, even after my parents helped him with room&board and earning tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships. At 27, he has yet to find a PA job (at all, not just being picky) in the region he and his fiance hope to live, in the state he received his certification. He'll have his whole career to pay back his loans, but I wager that he won't be out ahead of them until he's close to 37 or 40.
Anecdotes are a dime a dozen, and I don't expect them to mean a damn thing in the broader context of this discussion. I'm still on the fence about the loan forgiveness programs, as it does nothing so affect the cogs of the machine that actually produce the issue, but it's sure as shit a start.
ETA - I'm all for personal accountability. I think it's been completely lost, and it's the first natural response to a problem ("you made this mess you clean it up".
But to clarify/reiterate my stance - the degree machine has been deliberately rigged to work against the average college/university enrolee. It's one thing to tell people to figure their shit out, but when the system is a house of mirrors, the fault doesn't 100% lie with the individual in question.
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
Yeah, I had heard her supported a lower amount before. But that's still $10,000 too much. People need to learn to take responsibilities for their own choices. There's plenty of time left for people to pay back their own student loans without expecting other taxpayers to pay for them.
Yeah, let's have people take responsibility for the predatory lending schemes and privatization of formerly publicly backed programs which enabled the absurd increase in college tuition, directly benefitting everyone but the students going to the colleges and universities and the part-time untenured faculty who do the gruntwork of teaching them. All under the pervasive narrative that "one must go to college to get a good job" which turned out to be one of the biggest self-fulfilling prophecies on the '70s and '80s.
There are plenty of people out there who knowingly went to a particular school and spent their school years doing fuckall to get a degree that would actually set themselves up for success.
There's also plenty of people who worked hard in school under the assumption that their chosen major would allow them to break into the working world only to find that entry level positions are only awarded to those who had 'connections' (be it internships that they couldn't afford to participate in, or networking events they had no real way to getting invited to).
For every dumbass who spent 4 years in a fraternity drinking his way through a communications degree, there's another 2-3 people who either "pursued their passion"* and/or worked to get an entry level STEM bachelor's to find at the end of it that the real opportunities are locked behind a PHD and 10 years of menial forced labor working for the next grant.
*Whether or not this happened to you, this was a very common narrative that I was introduced to in high school - that you'd have the best chance of success in life if you went to school for the things you loved rather than for something that would have allowed you a good paying position. It's the exact narrative that colleges and universities use as propaganda to bring even more students (and competition for "limited enrollment opportunities") into their halls to justify the bloated rolodex of degrees they offer and locking plenty of people into permanent, lifelong debt to that university.
I say this all as someone who will make my final student loan payment this year, a private loan no less - I do not stand to benefit from Biden's program, I am not eligible for PSLF, and my loan interest hasn't been 'paused' because of the pandemic.
My brother, on the other hand, finally graduated from his PA program. He is smarter than I will ever be. He graduated top 5% of his class, and will be well over $100k in debt, even after my parents helped him with room&board and earning tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships. At 27, he has yet to find a PA job (at all, not just being picky) in the region he and his fiance hope to live, in the state he received his certification. He'll have his whole career to pay back his loans, but I wager that he won't be out ahead of them until he's close to 37 or 40.
Anecdotes are a dime a dozen, and I don't expect them to mean a damn thing in the broader context of this discussion. I'm still on the fence about the loan forgiveness programs, as it does nothing so affect the cogs of the machine that actually produce the issue, but it's sure as shit a start.
ETA - I'm all for personal accountability. I think it's been completely lost, and it's the first natural response to a problem ("you made this mess you clean it up".
But to clarify/reiterate my stance - the degree machine has been deliberately rigged to work against the average college/university enrolee. It's one thing to tell people to figure their shit out, but when the system is a house of mirrors, the fault doesn't 100% lie with the individual in question.
There's no guarantee of a job with a degree. That should actually be researched ahead of time, and not just anectdotally.
If your brother does what needs to be done and moves somewhere were PAs are in high demand he should have those loans paid off in 3 years or less.
-
My brother, on the other hand, finally graduated from his PA program. He is smarter than I will ever be. He graduated top 5% of his class, and will be well over $100k in debt, even after my parents helped him with room&board and earning tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships. At 27, he has yet to find a PA job (at all, not just being picky) in the region he and his fiance hope to live, in the state he received his certification. He'll have his whole career to pay back his loans, but I wager that he won't be out ahead of them until he's close to 37 or 40.
He may have to move to get a starting PA job, and make the region where he hopes to live be his "long game".
-
Meh, I'm fine with others getting the 10k and me not getting refunded for mine.
I mean, I had the military pay for a LARGE part of my undergrad degree, plus all of my master's degree, and I didn't even have to go to war!
-
Biden not in favor of $50k forgiveness, supports $10k:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dismisses-a-democratic-plan-to-wipe-out-50-000-in-federal-student-loan-debt/ar-BB1dKk2s
Yeah, I had heard her supported a lower amount before. But that's still $10,000 too much. People need to learn to take responsibilities for their own choices. There's plenty of time left for people to pay back their own student loans without expecting other taxpayers to pay for them.
Yeah, let's have people take responsibility for the predatory lending schemes and privatization of formerly publicly backed programs which enabled the absurd increase in college tuition, directly benefitting everyone but the students going to the colleges and universities and the part-time untenured faculty who do the gruntwork of teaching them. All under the pervasive narrative that "one must go to college to get a good job" which turned out to be one of the biggest self-fulfilling prophecies on the '70s and '80s.
There are plenty of people out there who knowingly went to a particular school and spent their school years doing fuckall to get a degree that would actually set themselves up for success.
There's also plenty of people who worked hard in school under the assumption that their chosen major would allow them to break into the working world only to find that entry level positions are only awarded to those who had 'connections' (be it internships that they couldn't afford to participate in, or networking events they had no real way to getting invited to).
For every dumbass who spent 4 years in a fraternity drinking his way through a communications degree, there's another 2-3 people who either "pursued their passion"* and/or worked to get an entry level STEM bachelor's to find at the end of it that the real opportunities are locked behind a PHD and 10 years of menial forced labor working for the next grant.
*Whether or not this happened to you, this was a very common narrative that I was introduced to in high school - that you'd have the best chance of success in life if you went to school for the things you loved rather than for something that would have allowed you a good paying position. It's the exact narrative that colleges and universities use as propaganda to bring even more students (and competition for "limited enrollment opportunities") into their halls to justify the bloated rolodex of degrees they offer and locking plenty of people into permanent, lifelong debt to that university.
I say this all as someone who will make my final student loan payment this year, a private loan no less - I do not stand to benefit from Biden's program, I am not eligible for PSLF, and my loan interest hasn't been 'paused' because of the pandemic.
My brother, on the other hand, finally graduated from his PA program. He is smarter than I will ever be. He graduated top 5% of his class, and will be well over $100k in debt, even after my parents helped him with room&board and earning tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships. At 27, he has yet to find a PA job (at all, not just being picky) in the region he and his fiance hope to live, in the state he received his certification. He'll have his whole career to pay back his loans, but I wager that he won't be out ahead of them until he's close to 37 or 40.
Anecdotes are a dime a dozen, and I don't expect them to mean a damn thing in the broader context of this discussion. I'm still on the fence about the loan forgiveness programs, as it does nothing so affect the cogs of the machine that actually produce the issue, but it's sure as shit a start.
ETA - I'm all for personal accountability. I think it's been completely lost, and it's the first natural response to a problem ("you made this mess you clean it up".
But to clarify/reiterate my stance - the degree machine has been deliberately rigged to work against the average college/university enrolee. It's one thing to tell people to figure their shit out, but when the system is a house of mirrors, the fault doesn't 100% lie with the individual in question.
There's no guarantee of a job with a degree. That should actually be researched ahead of time, and not just anectdotally.
If your brother does what needs to be done and moves somewhere were PAs are in high demand he should have those loans paid off in 3 years or less.
My point wasn't about my brother. He'll be fine, he will find a PA job that he will enjoy even if it means he needs to relocate.
My broader point was that, especially in the 90's and 00's, we were constantly sold the narrative that higher education was the ticket to a good paying job and a good income. Then and even now, one of the biggest bullet points for any given college or university is how many undergrads find a job within a certain timeframe after graduation.
Nobody ever once stopped to educate me on the cost of higher education. My parents had a keen awareness but they arranged their finances in such a way that we would be eligible for every FAFSA dollar we could qualify for, on top of merit and organization-based scholarships.
But despite that, no high school teacher or counselor ever tried to do anything other than put us on the path to college, irrespective of what our interests were.
It was just assumed to be a fact of life that school would be so expensive, when just a generation prior many people did work their way through school.
Despite the fact that there's no guarantee of a job with a degree, it sure is shit is sold to high schoolers and their parents that there's a guarantee of a job with a job with a degree. High school teachers, guidance counselors, career counselors, admissions reps will never tell a student that they're at risk of being in tens of thousands of dollars in debt with no means to repay because they were oversold and underdelivered.
Higher education is a fucking mess right now, and it has been for quite some time. Have you ever heard of a school choosing to keep tuition flat (or even to lower it) year-over-year? It happens, it's rare, and when it happens its a huge deal because the expectation is that higher education is just going to keep riding that gravy train of free, guaranteed money - I'm not even going to get into the asinine justification to spend much of that money on 'campus improvements' and 'sports'.
Bringing it back to the issue at hand - college enrollment media looks a hell of a lot like a timeshare presentation. Beautiful campuses, attractive students, meaningless numbers all beautifully organized to lure you and your guaranteed federally-backed non-dischargeable-in-bankruptcy student loans. Dollar signs, is what the students are to so many universities - granted they do fulfill their contractual obligations to educate those kids in whatever the kids think sounds interesting.
So, yeah, parents and prospective students should do their research, but we've been conditioned as a society to expect that a college degree is now necessary for gainful employment above minimum wage and manual labor/trades.
-
I’m perfectly happy to have other people’s loans forgiven. The taxpayers of Colorado paid my tuition, and that was a terrific system we should go back to - state universities are public schools.
And I paid my kids’ tuition. It’s nice that they’ve got jobs, but they went to college to know more stuff, just like they went to high school.
-
I think it was said up thread - but it's an odd thought to forgive the loans or give any money to those who probably have higher incomes than people who couldn't / didn't go to university.
It doesn't seem very efficient as far as most help for x amount of dollar spend.
What I want to see most is fixing the root the cause. When loans can't be discharged, the money is given and therefore spent wrecklessly on inflated items.
Then maybe - MAYBE down the road we have more options for those who student debt to income exceeds a certain threshold.
-
Honestly, I'm surprised by the Democrat's push to discharge student loans. That party is currently saying we really need to help out poor, underprivileged, minorities in our country. At the same time, we are talking about forgiving student loans. Are the people with student loans really the most underprivileged people in our country? It doesn't seem like it. What percentage are Black or Latino? I'm not sure but it seems lower than average.
Would people spend more (helping the economy?) if their student loans were forgiven? Sure, some would. Is that the most efficient way to stimulate the economy? No way.
I personally don't feel like it's "fair" to forgive student loans. Going to college is (should be) a calculated financial decision. I spent about $60K going to college to get an engineering degree. I took student loans for some of that money knowing that I would have much higher earning potential and could pay those off quickly after graduation. It was a great decision for me. Other people make the decision to start work straight out of high school. They have (on average) a lower earning potential but they start their earning/saving career 4 years sooner without debt. If the government pays off my debt but does nothing for them, they are widening the future "wealth gap". (Again, seems like something the Democrats would be against)
I do feel bad for people who were given bad advice and ended up with lots of debt for a degree (or partial degree) that doesn't increase their earning potential very much. Our college system is broken and needs to be fixed. But, it's still not the best use of our tax dollars to do widespread forgiveness. If we start that, where do we stop? Maybe I was given bad advice about credit cards and racked up a bunch of debt? Maybe I bought to much house in Detroit right before the housing prices plummeted? At some point, people need to take personal responsibility for their choices. If we just pay off their college debt, most will learn nothing and will borrow money for a vacation, a "clown car" or a "McMansion". We should look at other options to help those people. Maybe we could start a program like the Dave Ramsey baby steps without the polarizing political and religious views. Make that free for everyone. That way, people build good financial habits that will help them the rest of their lives. This also seems like a great way to help people who come from under-privileged backgrounds and didn't go to college.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
I agree. Give the kids a break, 10K per student is a pittance.
I'd remind everyone that 1st time college attendees, blacks, and latinos tend to have much more student debt than whites (no fault of their own). Meanwhile since the 80's, public college funding has fallen off the cliff while at the same time tuition rates skyrocketed. [Big Oil subsidies have been left intact, Medicare costs have skyrocketed, SSDI payouts have skyrocketed]. This is class warfare between the old and the young, and the young are definitely losing.
Forgive 10K. Take the win.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
What would be the grounds for rejecting them as applicants? Most college applicants look similar on paper and it would be hard to predict who will leave without finishing since there are many reasons, one big one being the cost (hence the loans).
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
What would be the grounds for rejecting them as applicants? Most college applicants look similar on paper and it would be hard to predict who will leave without finishing since there are many reasons, one big one being the cost (hence the loans).
(https://i.imgur.com/DZ5g8BQ.png)
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Some people don't take the aca subsidy. Pete himself would be an example this year.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Some people don't take the aca subsidy. Pete himself would be an example this year.
Also, if someone works up to early-retiree-millionaire status (as opposed to inheriting it or winning the lottery) they most likely have paid federal taxes and thus contributed to ACA subsidies for something like 10 years on the lower end (many high earners who accomplish this are in a high tax bracket during earning years) to 30-40 years on the upper end (in which case, give me a break- these people have earned ER however they can make it happen on paper). It's not like they are just taking from a pot they never contributed to.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
I guess if you try really hard you can put any bad choice down to structural factors.
If we're going to give every college student a handout, I'd like that handout too, having paid off my student loans. Otherwise you're just punishing students who did the right thing.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
I agree. Give the kids a break, 10K per student is a pittance.
I'd remind everyone that 1st time college attendees, blacks, and latinos tend to have much more student debt than whites (no fault of their own). Meanwhile since the 80's, public college funding has fallen off the cliff while at the same time tuition rates skyrocketed. [Big Oil subsidies have been left intact, Medicare costs have skyrocketed, SSDI payouts have skyrocketed]. This is class warfare between the old and the young, and the young are definitely losing.
Forgive 10K. Take the win.
If only there was a clap emoji ^^^ !
-
For those who are saying the system is rigged and that's the reason a payout should occur for student loans -
Do you rate the student loan crisis above or below our current criminal justice system and the war on drugs?
What about credit cards, title loans etc etc - unfortunately the world is pretty full of traps. Even healthcare can easily be a real gotcha.
Why / how do you justify the college loans group (not even the ones who paid / couldn't afford to go) receiving a payment / forgiveness compared to everyone else?
-
And why give $10k to only the children who went to college - what about the ones who missed out? Give them $20k apiece.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
I agree. Give the kids a break, 10K per student is a pittance.
I'd remind everyone that 1st time college attendees, blacks, and latinos tend to have much more student debt than whites (no fault of their own). Meanwhile since the 80's, public college funding has fallen off the cliff while at the same time tuition rates skyrocketed. [Big Oil subsidies have been left intact, Medicare costs have skyrocketed, SSDI payouts have skyrocketed]. This is class warfare between the old and the young, and the young are definitely losing.
Forgive 10K. Take the win.
If only there was a clap emoji ^^^ !
Seconded.
-
For those who are saying the system is rigged and that's the reason a payout should occur for student loans -
Do you rate the student loan crisis above or below our current criminal justice system and the war on drugs?
What about credit cards, title loans etc etc - unfortunately the world is pretty full of traps. Even healthcare can easily be a real gotcha.
Why / how do you justify the college loans group (not even the ones who paid / couldn't afford to go) receiving a payment / forgiveness compared to everyone else?
Honestly, neither above or below but of a piece with the two bolded things. Never underestimate how interlocking systems serve to disenfranchise a whole bunch of folks.
I've said it way upthread, but the reason I now see it as pretty easily justifiable is that it was a program that was incentivized by the government that ended up hurting the very people it was supposed to help.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
Really? It's all over this forum.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
I guess if you try really hard you can put any bad choice down to structural factors.
If we're going to give every college student a handout, I'd like that handout too, having paid off my student loans. Otherwise you're just punishing students who did the right thing.
Hey Bloop, you are in Australia which has a very nice social safety net and relatively cheap college education -> and you are complaining about US handouts?
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
Really? It's all over this forum.
Yeah, I find it really hypocritical that millionaires are so opposed for forgiving some debt for struggling people during a pandemic, when they spend their time scheming ways to avoid paying for health insurance or paying taxes.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
Really? It's all over this forum.
Yeah, I find it really hypocritical that millionaires are so opposed for forgiving some debt for struggling people during a pandemic, when they spend their time scheming ways to avoid paying for health insurance or paying taxes.
I understand a little some people's frustration with people trying to get ACA subsidies despite being more wealthy. For the other part, though, I'm really curious where you draw the line on this. Do you personally do nothing to restrict your tax liability? Do you not contribute anything to a 401k or a Roth IRA? Do you voluntarily pay tax on your capital gains of stocks at the rate of your income level (I don't know if you believe this should be what happens, but people with the line of thought your espousing generally do)? I don't think it's hypocritical for the majority of Americans to do things to reduce how much tax they pay (some exceptions could certainly be argued in the ultra-wealthy where they do extreme things to lower their tax rates, but that's not really applicable to people on this forum). I also don't think the charge of hypocrisy applies, because reducing how much you pay the federal government is not the same thing as arguing against the government paying for something to happen. Subsidies fit this bill, but avoiding paying taxes does not.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
I guess if you try really hard you can put any bad choice down to structural factors.
If we're going to give every college student a handout, I'd like that handout too, having paid off my student loans. Otherwise you're just punishing students who did the right thing.
Hey Bloop, you are in Australia which has a very nice social safety net and relatively cheap college education -> and you are complaining about US handouts?
There are plenty of US people who paid off their loans or paid them off early (including myself). Bloop is making a pretty fair point for people like me, regardless of whether or not they ever took out a loan for college in the us.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
Really? It's all over this forum.
Yeah, I find it really hypocritical that millionaires are so opposed for forgiving some debt for struggling people during a pandemic, when they spend their time scheming ways to avoid paying for health insurance or paying taxes.
I dont oppose helping struggling people. But in my personal observation - Those with college educations are least affected and most likely able to work from home during the pandemic. I just find it odd that this college debt group is the group that we would even consider or find ethical to financially support with pretty large payouts compared with many people in much worse situations.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
What would be the grounds for rejecting them as applicants? Most college applicants look similar on paper and it would be hard to predict who will leave without finishing since there are many reasons, one big one being the cost (hence the loans).
(https://i.imgur.com/DZ5g8BQ.png)
So an A/B HS student with a 1300 SAT score is basically a coin flip to graduate college in 6 years? Seems like that's some shitty predictive validity.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
I guess if you try really hard you can put any bad choice down to structural factors.
If we're going to give every college student a handout, I'd like that handout too, having paid off my student loans. Otherwise you're just punishing students who did the right thing.
Hey Bloop, you are in Australia which has a very nice social safety net and relatively cheap college education -> and you are complaining about US handouts?
There are plenty of US people who paid off their loans or paid them off early (including myself). Bloop is making a pretty fair point for people like me, regardless of whether or not they ever took out a loan for college in the us.
Hi Maisy,
My wife and I paid off > 250K in loans. Took us nearly 10 years. So what? Does this mean other generations should suffer too? Is that what you want?
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
What would be the grounds for rejecting them as applicants? Most college applicants look similar on paper and it would be hard to predict who will leave without finishing since there are many reasons, one big one being the cost (hence the loans).
(https://i.imgur.com/DZ5g8BQ.png)
So an A/B HS student with a 1300 SAT score is basically a coin flip to graduate college in 6 years? Seems like that's some shitty predictive validity.
Great data driven post! Those metrics may not be everything, but they certainly show a trend, right? I can’t tell you where to draw the line, but right now there are no lines at all. There aren’t even any discussions about drawing lines. That’s a systematic failure in the US. 18 yo needs 30K federal loan with a 2.5 gpa to go to a shoddy private school. Sure! Sign them up!!!
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
There are millions of borrowers who have 10k or less of student loan debt who do not in fact have degrees.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
There are millions of borrowers who have 10k or less of student loan debt who do not in fact have degrees.
Certainly there are. However, overall, statistically, people who went to college are better off than people who did not. If people want to try to propose something where we pay off student loan debt for people who didn't graduate, that's fine, but propose it. It would be an even harder sell, but then the argument could potentially be made that they're actually worse off. In general, though, the way student loan forgiveness is being packaged, there's no rationale that I've seen for forgiving it for that group as opposed to other debt which is also crippling, was taken on by people from predatory practices, etc. It really boggles my mind, because it seems in opposition to what Democrats purport to stand for - it's not helping out the people who need it the most. The issue is not whataboutism either. I'm talking about two situations that are extremely similar (not comparing the cost of student loan forgiveness to the cost of the Green New Deal or anything dissimilar like that), where the Democrats are all gung ho about this issue but with nary a peep about other issues.
-
If only there were targeted programs to help those who really aren't seeing a good return on their tuition...
https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
my point here is that the amount of angst over student loan relief is disproportional and seems to center on the 'outrage' of helping people who got a college degree.
do you have any support for your "statistically better off"? I'm familiar with the BA/BS vs AA/AS vs high school earning - but:
1) many people with student loan debt did not complete a degree.
2) do those with student loan debt do better than those without after taking into account student loan payments?
then we need to talk about the spectum of student loans. Maybe a lot are ok, maybe on average they are good, but there are plenty who are not, and in fact - there are a lot of cases where that 10k will be just a drop in a very large bucket. Yes - there are some who may benefit that didn't 'need' it, just like there are those who don't 'need' ACA subsidies put in place for lower income folks to retire, but they take them anyway.
And yes, this cuts out those who may have benefitted, may have 'needed', but wrong timing. Will happen for student loan relief, just like there are people who don't even know you can game the ACA subsidies, and work till 65 just for the health care.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
There are millions of borrowers who have 10k or less of student loan debt who do not in fact have degrees.
Certainly there are. However, overall, statistically, people who went to college are better off than people who did not. If people want to try to propose something where we pay off student loan debt for people who didn't graduate, that's fine, but propose it. It would be an even harder sell, but then the argument could potentially be made that they're actually worse off. In general, though, the way student loan forgiveness is being packaged, there's no rationale that I've seen for forgiving it for that group as opposed to other debt which is also crippling, was taken on by people from predatory practices, etc. It really boggles my mind, because it seems in opposition to what Democrats purport to stand for - it's not helping out the people who need it the most. The issue is not whataboutism either. I'm talking about two situations that are extremely similar (not comparing the cost of student loan forgiveness to the cost of the Green New Deal or anything dissimilar like that), where the Democrats are all gung ho about this issue but with nary a peep about other issues.
OOOOO - so this about "the democrats", ok.
nary a peep about other issues? not sure where you are getting that. I think AOC is on constant peeping! about everything!
Currently, about relief for texas....
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
There are millions of borrowers who have 10k or less of student loan debt who do not in fact have degrees.
Certainly there are. However, overall, statistically, people who went to college are better off than people who did not. If people want to try to propose something where we pay off student loan debt for people who didn't graduate, that's fine, but propose it. It would be an even harder sell, but then the argument could potentially be made that they're actually worse off. In general, though, the way student loan forgiveness is being packaged, there's no rationale that I've seen for forgiving it for that group as opposed to other debt which is also crippling, was taken on by people from predatory practices, etc. It really boggles my mind, because it seems in opposition to what Democrats purport to stand for - it's not helping out the people who need it the most. The issue is not whataboutism either. I'm talking about two situations that are extremely similar (not comparing the cost of student loan forgiveness to the cost of the Green New Deal or anything dissimilar like that), where the Democrats are all gung ho about this issue but with nary a peep about other issues.
OOOOO - so this about "the democrats", ok.
nary a peep about other issues? not sure where you are getting that. I think AOC is on constant peeping! about everything!
Currently, about relief for texas....
Um, no, it's not just about Democrats. I am a moderate, not a Democrat. I voted for Biden this time. I'm not trying to score political points, but I will not withhold criticism of a party that deserves it.
And yes, nary a peep. Texas relief is about a natural disaster. You are clearly missing what I am talking about, either intentionally or otherwise because you saw a criticism of Democrats and immediately jumped to your foregone conclusions. I was specifically and clearly talking about the other types of debt that could be forgiven. Have you seen any legitimate pushes for forgiving any of the other types of debt I have mentioned?
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
my point here is that the amount of angst over student loan relief is disproportional and seems to center on the 'outrage' of helping people who got a college degree.
do you have any support for your "statistically better off"? I'm familiar with the BA/BS vs AA/AS vs high school earning - but:
1) many people with student loan debt did not complete a degree.
2) do those with student loan debt do better than those without after taking into account student loan payments?
then we need to talk about the spectum of student loans. Maybe a lot are ok, maybe on average they are good, but there are plenty who are not, and in fact - there are a lot of cases where that 10k will be just a drop in a very large bucket. Yes - there are some who may benefit that didn't 'need' it, just like there are those who don't 'need' ACA subsidies put in place for lower income folks to retire, but they take them anyway.
And yes, this cuts out those who may have benefitted, may have 'needed', but wrong timing. Will happen for student loan relief, just like there are people who don't even know you can game the ACA subsidies, and work till 65 just for the health care.
This is a fair point to consider, and I will look into it/put some thought into it.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
I am one of those millionaires who engineered my retirement income to take advantage of ACA subsidies.
Extra points if you can be a Millionaire on Medicaid, the poor people’s program.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
I guess if you try really hard you can put any bad choice down to structural factors.
If we're going to give every college student a handout, I'd like that handout too, having paid off my student loans. Otherwise you're just punishing students who did the right thing.
Hey Bloop, you are in Australia which has a very nice social safety net and relatively cheap college education -> and you are complaining about US handouts?
There are plenty of US people who paid off their loans or paid them off early (including myself). Bloop is making a pretty fair point for people like me, regardless of whether or not they ever took out a loan for college in the us.
Hi Maisy,
My wife and I paid off > 250K in loans. Took us nearly 10 years. So what? Does this mean other generations should suffer too? Is that what you want?
I want people to be responsible for the liabilities they have *voluntarily* taken on. I would feel the same way about any other loan forgiveness program that benefits only a subset of the population. Waving around the exact quantity and payoff time for your student loan as an argument for anything is also sort of weird to me. Sorry, but I don't care whether it took you five years or forty, or whether it was 10K or 500K. Congrats on getting it done regardless.
I do agree with your earlier point that many people shouldn't have been accepted into college in the first place. But the colleges themselves are not the loan providers- so while they might be part of the overall problem of ever-increasing college debt, I don't think they are the only party to blame.
I'm in agreement with others that have posted that a 10K forgiveness would not be equitable, and would only serve as a band-aid over a gaping bullet hole. To address your concern that I want people to "suffer"- I'm not a horrible person, I just think there are much better solutions out there.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
There are millions of borrowers who have 10k or less of student loan debt who do not in fact have degrees.
Certainly there are. However, overall, statistically, people who went to college are better off than people who did not. If people want to try to propose something where we pay off student loan debt for people who didn't graduate, that's fine, but propose it. It would be an even harder sell, but then the argument could potentially be made that they're actually worse off. In general, though, the way student loan forgiveness is being packaged, there's no rationale that I've seen for forgiving it for that group as opposed to other debt which is also crippling, was taken on by people from predatory practices, etc. It really boggles my mind, because it seems in opposition to what Democrats purport to stand for - it's not helping out the people who need it the most. The issue is not whataboutism either. I'm talking about two situations that are extremely similar (not comparing the cost of student loan forgiveness to the cost of the Green New Deal or anything dissimilar like that), where the Democrats are all gung ho about this issue but with nary a peep about other issues.
OOOOO - so this about "the democrats", ok.
nary a peep about other issues? not sure where you are getting that. I think AOC is on constant peeping! about everything!
Currently, about relief for texas....
Um, no, it's not just about Democrats. I am a moderate, not a Democrat. I voted for Biden this time. I'm not trying to score political points, but I will not withhold criticism of a party that deserves it.
And yes, nary a peep. Texas relief is about a natural disaster. You are clearly missing what I am talking about, either intentionally or otherwise because you saw a criticism of Democrats and immediately jumped to your foregone conclusions. I was specifically and clearly talking about the other types of debt that could be forgiven. Have you seen any legitimate pushes for forgiving any of the other types of debt I have mentioned?
there is this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/coronavirus-stimulus-democrats-try-to-pass-1point9-trillion-relief-bill.html
Democrats’ proposal includes $1,400 direct payments to most Americans, a $400 per week federal jobless benefit through September, and $350 billion for state, local and tribal relief. It also puts $170 billion into K-12 schools and higher education institutions, along with $20 billion into a national vaccination program, among a slew of other provisions.
any student loan in there?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/02/01/what-the-new-stimulus-package-says-about-student-loans/?sh=7b90a9812e87
The new, $1.9 trillion stimulus package that President Joe Biden proposed doesn’t include any student loan cancellation. The stimulus plan instead focuses on other policy priorities like $1,400 stimulus checks and $400 a week unemployment insurance. Senate Republicans have proposed a separate $618 billion stimulus package — about a third the size of Biden’s stimulus plan — that also excludes student loan cancellation and offers $1,000 stimulus checks as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
I interpert that as the student loan issue is not a high priority for biden right now, although there are a few dems who are trying to push something through on the side of this relief package.
On one hand, with payments suspended and 0% interest on federal loans - I agree with not a priority. However, many people have private student student that are unaffected by those mitigation measures, and if you had consolidated your loans they may not have been affected by the 0%/no payment as well. Likely the fed will do nothing to impact private loans anyway. Not sure where the consolidated come out.
So I'd say biden and most of his group are not that focused on the student loan thing. He probably just promised sanders that he would do it to get sanders to not derail things like he did in 2016.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Please explain how this is done.
Really? It's all over this forum.
Yeah, I find it really hypocritical that millionaires are so opposed for forgiving some debt for struggling people during a pandemic, when they spend their time scheming ways to avoid paying for health insurance or paying taxes.
I am not keen on yet another gubmnt handout program.
I am especially not keen on obligations being forgiven, as in the student loan program.
I am resigned, however, to the inherent unfairness of gubmnt programs sometimes benefitting me and sometimes the opposite. Such is the nature of that beast. Just because I am resigned doesnt mean I like it or I think it is good for the country.
And this brings me to the idea of hypocrisy: you can only call me a hypocrite if you can find anywhere on the internet where I have celebrated the ACA as being a wonderifl fabulous and excellent thing dor our country. Go on, go out there and look. I’ll give you a minute... hmmm.... lalala...ok, time is up.
You wont find my words celebrating the ACA on the internet because I have never celebrated it. I think it is a huge unwieldy amazingly bad piece of legislation that while benefiting a small percentage of our populace caused so much upheaval for the rest of the populace it was not worth it.
Oh and by the way it DID benefit me for a few years between COBRA and eligibility for Medicare.The government program was there, I took advantage of the government program. That doesn’t make me a hypocrite it makes me a sophisticated user of government services.
-
As an example of other fiscal changes, when the tax rates changed:
Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
2017 39.6% $418,401+ $470,701+
2020 37% $518,401+ $622,051+
https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets
a single person making 500k also got a 10k bonus.....but not one time, on a yearly basis going forward. now..... these are people I would say are doing particularly well and likely didn't need an additional 10k in their pockets. But I sure don't remember this level of pointed angst about it. Although - I wasn't here on this board.
Was their complete outrage over these high flying, high earners getting this extra cash? Or was everyone find to pocket their own 900-4k extra and call it good?
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
my point here is that the amount of angst over student loan relief is disproportional and seems to center on the 'outrage' of helping people who got a college degree.
do you have any support for your "statistically better off"? I'm familiar with the BA/BS vs AA/AS vs high school earning - but:
1) many people with student loan debt did not complete a degree.
2) do those with student loan debt do better than those without after taking into account student loan payments?
then we need to talk about the spectum of student loans. Maybe a lot are ok, maybe on average they are good, but there are plenty who are not, and in fact - there are a lot of cases where that 10k will be just a drop in a very large bucket. Yes - there are some who may benefit that didn't 'need' it, just like there are those who don't 'need' ACA subsidies put in place for lower income folks to retire, but they take them anyway.
And yes, this cuts out those who may have benefitted, may have 'needed', but wrong timing. Will happen for student loan relief, just like there are people who don't even know you can game the ACA subsidies, and work till 65 just for the health care.
Ok, that was a great question. I wanted to look into it because I was not sure myself. From very brief research, it appears that people with some college degree are actually equivalent based off of median net worth to people who just have a high school diploma, which tends to improve with age. Even with the 25th percentile of net worth, it's still relatively equivalent comparing college but no full degree with high school graduates, and it peaks higher to have some college compared to no college.
https://ofdollarsanddata.com/average-net-worth-by-age-and-education/
I'm not going to declare unilaterally that people with some college are better off than people who didn't go, to begin with, but this information would tend to make me think there's not a statistical huge gaping hole for people who started college but didn't finish - a pretty big deal bad idea/situation. If the point was being made that people in that situation need significant help compared to others, I would expect to see statistics showing that it's a problem, but in my opinion, the burden of proof would be on whoever is proposing the government subsidy to prove it.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
Just because there exist more bad laws than X, it doesn't mean that we should pass X just because it's not the worst thing ever.... it's not a contradiction to fight against oil subsidies and also student loan forgiveness.
-
every policy decision about money is going to advantage some over others. Child tax credits for people who will never have children, solar credits for people who hate solar, or could never afford to go solar, etc. etc.
And some raised their kids before the credits, or installed solar before those credits.
Some people are always losing out on new directions, that doesn't mean they aren't the right way to go.
for student loan forgiveness, seems a much better move than these oil subsidies.....
I can understand the sentiment, but oil subsidies is a pretty low bar to pass for reasons why to do something by comparison. I'm being a broken record, but to date in this thread, no one has addressed a true comparison of why the government should forgive student loan debts to people who statistically are better off than other segments of the population, as opposed to forgiving other forms of debt - credit card, payday loans, etc. etc.
There are millions of borrowers who have 10k or less of student loan debt who do not in fact have degrees.
Certainly there are. However, overall, statistically, people who went to college are better off than people who did not. If people want to try to propose something where we pay off student loan debt for people who didn't graduate, that's fine, but propose it. It would be an even harder sell, but then the argument could potentially be made that they're actually worse off. In general, though, the way student loan forgiveness is being packaged, there's no rationale that I've seen for forgiving it for that group as opposed to other debt which is also crippling, was taken on by people from predatory practices, etc. It really boggles my mind, because it seems in opposition to what Democrats purport to stand for - it's not helping out the people who need it the most. The issue is not whataboutism either. I'm talking about two situations that are extremely similar (not comparing the cost of student loan forgiveness to the cost of the Green New Deal or anything dissimilar like that), where the Democrats are all gung ho about this issue but with nary a peep about other issues.
OOOOO - so this about "the democrats", ok.
nary a peep about other issues? not sure where you are getting that. I think AOC is on constant peeping! about everything!
Currently, about relief for texas....
Um, no, it's not just about Democrats. I am a moderate, not a Democrat. I voted for Biden this time. I'm not trying to score political points, but I will not withhold criticism of a party that deserves it.
And yes, nary a peep. Texas relief is about a natural disaster. You are clearly missing what I am talking about, either intentionally or otherwise because you saw a criticism of Democrats and immediately jumped to your foregone conclusions. I was specifically and clearly talking about the other types of debt that could be forgiven. Have you seen any legitimate pushes for forgiving any of the other types of debt I have mentioned?
there is this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/coronavirus-stimulus-democrats-try-to-pass-1point9-trillion-relief-bill.html
Democrats’ proposal includes $1,400 direct payments to most Americans, a $400 per week federal jobless benefit through September, and $350 billion for state, local and tribal relief. It also puts $170 billion into K-12 schools and higher education institutions, along with $20 billion into a national vaccination program, among a slew of other provisions.
any student loan in there?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/02/01/what-the-new-stimulus-package-says-about-student-loans/?sh=7b90a9812e87
The new, $1.9 trillion stimulus package that President Joe Biden proposed doesn’t include any student loan cancellation. The stimulus plan instead focuses on other policy priorities like $1,400 stimulus checks and $400 a week unemployment insurance. Senate Republicans have proposed a separate $618 billion stimulus package — about a third the size of Biden’s stimulus plan — that also excludes student loan cancellation and offers $1,000 stimulus checks as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
I interpert that as the student loan issue is not a high priority for biden right now, although there are a few dems who are trying to push something through on the side of this relief package.
On one hand, with payments suspended and 0% interest on federal loans - I agree with not a priority. However, many people have private student student that are unaffected by those mitigation measures, and if you had consolidated your loans they may not have been affected by the 0%/no payment as well. Likely the fed will do nothing to impact private loans anyway. Not sure where the consolidated come out.
So I'd say biden and most of his group are not that focused on the student loan thing. He probably just promised sanders that he would do it to get sanders to not derail things like he did in 2016.
The stimulus is certainly doing something, but it's still not a debt forgiveness. It's purpose is to keep the economy afloat and to help people in general who due to Covid are financially struggling.
I do agree that student loans are on the backburner with Democrats, but it was a fairly large campaign promise and arguably one that garnered votes for them (which is my criticism in general, it seems they were pushing this specific thing as a political football to garner votes, not because it'll help the most people).
I will, again, say that I give Biden credit for not bowing to the pressure for $50k when he said he wouldn't.
In regards to your comment about Trump's tax cuts - I didn't like them or think they were necessary. I did not support them, but in the same respect, a reduction in the tax someone pays is never going to generate as much frustration on my part as a government program that just gives out money. I can't speak for others, but that's why, for example, I would not support student loan forgiveness and actually post to talk about this compared to just simply not supporting Trump's tax cuts.
-
What I am gathering from this thread and especially the latest posts is that there is *PLENTY* of opposition to a one-time payout for student loan holders on both sides of the aisle. Look y'all, we have arrived at a bipartisan opinion! It's a Christmas Miracle!!! And it's not even March.
-
One thing about this thread I don't feel is getting enough attention is the question of doing any of this by executive order...
Those in favor, do you really want to set the precedent that the executive branch can spend a trillion dollars without the consent of congress? Do you really want the next president you don't agree with to have that option?
-
As an example of other fiscal changes, when the tax rates changed:
Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
2017 39.6% $418,401+ $470,701+
2020 37% $518,401+ $622,051+
https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets
a single person making 500k also got a 10k bonus.....but not one time, on a yearly basis going forward. now..... these are people I would say are doing particularly well and likely didn't need an additional 10k in their pockets. But I sure don't remember this level of pointed angst about it. Although - I wasn't here on this board.
Was their complete outrage over these high flying, high earners getting this extra cash? Or was everyone find to pocket their own 900-4k extra and call it good?
Giving someone more of his or her money back in his or her pocket is very different from excusing someone from a contractual obligation.
It's like me saying "oh this asshole got a $10k tax cut, where's my $10k pay rise?" It's chalk and cheese - it's a non sequitur.
And frankly if we HAD to relieve debt, I'd rather relieve medical debt or credit card debt for the poor, than student loan debt for kids who purported to be smart enough to make decisions about going to college.
-
Forgive credit card debt of the poor? Lots of people with student loan debt are poor. This is a weird thread.
-
One thing about this thread I don't feel is getting enough attention is the question of doing any of this by executive order...
Those in favor, do you really want to set the precedent that the executive branch can spend a trillion dollars without the consent of congress? Do you really want the next president you don't agree with to have that option?
+1
-
I said it before but I support a one time forgiveness if and only if it is accompanied with a clear plan for the US government to stop guaranteeing student loans in the future.
There are numerous possibilities to that end.
But slapping a huge bandaid on the situation is going to result in the same issue again in 5-10 years.
-
As an example of other fiscal changes, when the tax rates changed:
Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
2017 39.6% $418,401+ $470,701+
2020 37% $518,401+ $622,051+
https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets
a single person making 500k also got a 10k bonus.....but not one time, on a yearly basis going forward. now..... these are people I would say are doing particularly well and likely didn't need an additional 10k in their pockets. But I sure don't remember this level of pointed angst about it. Although - I wasn't here on this board.
Was their complete outrage over these high flying, high earners getting this extra cash? Or was everyone find to pocket their own 900-4k extra and call it good?
Not at all equivalent. Those people just had $10k less of their own money taken from them to give to others.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
@FrugalToque Thank you for this and being so blunt.
I often fall on the side of "pay your bills" and "you took out the loan." A lot of that is due to returning to school about 7 years ago and seeing how so many of my fellow students were spending the loan money. It increased my cynicism.
This reminder of how many got started on the hamster wheel was needed. And you stated it so well.
-
Focusing on college is the wrong move.
The idea that everyone should go to college does not accurately portray the range of jobs existing in our society. It ignores all types of trade jobs (welder, carpenter, etc), many of which pay a decent salary. For example, around here a union journeyman carpenter makes $52/hour and $31/hour for an apprentice carpenter (http://local22.org/2020_wage.pdf). I believe this ignorance is rooted in the tunnel vision of parents' expectations.
We have a moral duty to teach our children about the jobs necessary to sustain our society now and into the future. Yes, some of them require going to college. No, they will not all be performed on a computer.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
@FrugalToque Thank you for this and being so blunt.
I often fall on the side of "pay your bills" and "you took out the loan." A lot of that is due to returning to school about 7 years ago and seeing how so many of my fellow students were spending the loan money. It increased my cynicism.
This reminder of how many got started on the hamster wheel was needed. And you stated it so well.
What rubbish. If we raised the college starting age to 21 or 25 you'd still find some sort of structural reason to argue that these people have no individual agency despite having to register for SATs, see high school careers counsellors, and write admissions essays discussing why college suits them and why their personal values match the academic values of the institution.
I also didn't realise that the college put a gun to your head and forced you to double down on the degree after 1 or 2 semesters.
I wouldn't have an issue with fee relief for low-income students who dropped out due to adverse circumstances. That is totally understandable and those two criteria are relatively easy to administer. (Though I suspect there are already individual fee relief schemes for that.) Everyone else can take some personal responsibility.
-
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Yes, we suppress all stories about crushing student debt. Ain't no way they could possibly have heard of it before hand, because we didn't allow them to read news articles or watch TV before it was too late.
Oh look, a NY times article talking about student debt defaults from the year I was born, 1989:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/02/us/us-sets-tough-penalties-for-student-loan-defaults.html?searchResultPosition=6
-
One thing about this thread I don't feel is getting enough attention is the question of doing any of this by executive order...
Those in favor, do you really want to set the precedent that the executive branch can spend a trillion dollars without the consent of congress? Do you really want the next president you don't agree with to have that option?
Until it happens it's just a boogeyman. We spent 4 years with people saying Trump was about to declare nuclear war, marshal law, or whatever else by executive order that didn't happen. Now that Biden's president he's the new boogeyman that people declare will bypass congress for X, Y, or Z. Until it happens, it's not really something in your circle of concern nor control because it's just theories and what-ifs.
-
One thing about this thread I don't feel is getting enough attention is the question of doing any of this by executive order...
Those in favor, do you really want to set the precedent that the executive branch can spend a trillion dollars without the consent of congress? Do you really want the next president you don't agree with to have that option?
Until it happens it's just a boogeyman. We spent 4 years with people saying Trump was about to declare nuclear war, marshal law, or whatever else by executive order that didn't happen. Now that Biden's president he's the new boogeyman that people declare will bypass congress for X, Y, or Z. Until it happens, it's not really something in your circle of concern nor control because it's just theories and what-ifs.
I did vote for Biden, but I concur that what decisions the president does or doesn't make in office is now outside of my control for the next four years... It seems he is hesitant or even opposed to issuing an EO on this matter but I don't have any influence on that at all.
What might possibly be within my control is convincing someone who thinks "student loan forgiveness is a worthy cause" to give further thought to the matter of how it's accomplished and the possible future repercussions. The steady transfer of power to the executive branch each time congress fails to shoulder their responsibly concerns me. So I thought I'd raise the point to my fellow citizens advocating for speeding up the process.
-
What might possibly be within my control is convincing someone who thinks "student loan forgiveness is a worthy cause" to give further thought to the matter of how it's accomplished and the possible future repercussions. The steady transfer of power to the executive branch each time congress fails to shoulder their responsibly concerns me. So I thought I'd raise the point to my fellow citizens advocating for speeding up the process.
The people who support $50k loan forgiveness aren't financially intelligent people like you'll find on MMM. Hop on twitter, or tik tok, or imgur, or any alternative news sites that appeal to the under 25 crowd (soon to be the largest voting bloc in the nation) and you'll find that there's massive support for not only loan forgiveness, but making all school (meaning every type of school/college) tuition free for everyone.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Sure, I'll take a stab.
I don't think millionaires should be able to get those subsidies, but that's not going to stop me from taking advantage of every legal loophole I can.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Right on +1
I'm not at all surprised by the survey results. This is an extremely fiscally conservative forum, after all.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Right on +1
I'm not at all surprised by the survey results. This is an extremely fiscally conservative forum, after all.
Society told other lies as well.
"Renting is throwing money away"
"Buy as much house as you can afford"
Should we bail out those folks as well?
I'm super biased (obviously). I've seen so many people who were too good to live at home and go to the in state school, or do community college -> transfer to 4 year. It's almost free on that path.
Instead I know many who went out of state or out of town for the party life instead of the financially responsible route. I know someone who pretty much declined a full ride cause they didn't like the colors of the local university.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Right on +1
I'm not at all surprised by the survey results. This is an extremely fiscally conservative forum, after all.
Society told other lies as well.
"Renting is throwing money away"
"Buy as much house as you can afford"
Should we bail out those folks as well?
I'm super biased (obviously). I've seen so many people who were too good to live at home and go to the in state school, or do community college -> transfer to 4 year. It's almost free on that path.
Instead I know many who went out of state or out of town for the party life instead of the financially responsible route. I know someone who pretty much declined a full ride cause they didn't like the colors of the local university.
I fully agree with what Toque said, and he definitely summarized it better than I could.
To Kroaler's (and others') points above - these KIDS haven't even fully matured yet. At 16/17 (when you start to shop yourself around to colleges), your brain is years away from fully developing.
To compare the choices that KIDS are making at 16/17/18 to the decision to rent, or to homebuying isn't even in the same ballpark.
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
My situation is so fucking far from unique, the exact same thing happened to my wife (you MUST go to school).
Asking a hormone-addled, exhausted teenager to make a decision that will literally alter the trajectory of their life, and then saddling them with $30k+ in loans that they will carry for their entire lives, is absurd.
I would never expect taxpayers to take on the entire burden of the nation's student loan debt, and I don't have an easy answer, but I do agree that this forum leans hard toward fiscal conservatism and I think that can create blinders to the shitty circumstances that, in this case, both the higher education machine and the US Government itself caused.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
How does this loan forgiveness "fix it" though?
-
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
This is your parents' issue then.
-
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
This is your parents' issue then.
And conveniently it became my issue at 21, whether or not I was prepared. As I said upthread, I wouldn't benefit from this program for two separate reasons. And by no means do I believe parents, or even the (then) kids that are saddled with debt deserve a free pass.
In fact, I don't know how much this program would actually help. The crux of my argument is that the higher education machine is disgustingly predatory and the US Government not only facilitated the result we have today, but they are just as culpable as the colleges and universities who see teens as a meal ticket to boost revenues.
Yeah, fiscal responsibility is paramount, but just dismissing major issues with a hand-wave of "they should have thought it through" or whatever one-line justification is pretty cold.
Fiscal responsibility and personal accountability don't just magically materialize, and just because it's "not my problem" now doesn't mean the implications of a whole-society failure to educate kids to be responsible and accountable won't affect all of us in the future. Not just in the US either.
-
I fully agree with what Toque said, and he definitely summarized it better than I could.
To Kroaler's (and others') points above - these KIDS haven't even fully matured yet. At 16/17 (when you start to shop yourself around to colleges), your brain is years away from fully developing.
To compare the choices that KIDS are making at 16/17/18 to the decision to rent, or to homebuying isn't even in the same ballpark.
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
My situation is so fucking far from unique, the exact same thing happened to my wife (you MUST go to school).
Asking a hormone-addled, exhausted teenager to make a decision that will literally alter the trajectory of their life, and then saddling them with $30k+ in loans that they will carry for their entire lives, is absurd.
I would never expect taxpayers to take on the entire burden of the nation's student loan debt, and I don't have an easy answer, but I do agree that this forum leans hard toward fiscal conservatism and I think that can create blinders to the shitty circumstances that, in this case, both the higher education machine and the US Government itself caused.
I'm so glad you brought up the above (which I bolded and enbiggened)!
Late adolescence (16-18) is a time of brain rewiring/growth specifically related to the prefrontal cortex and risk/reward calculations and long term planning. A 17 year old brain doesn't take in or process information (particularly negative information) the same way a fully matured brain does.
This is just SO important for public policy because in the last 10 years we've learned that 18 year old brains just aren't capable of making the same decisions as 25 year old brains.
I really wanted to highlight your excellent point (and toque's great post!) because I think it is really relevant part of the larger picture.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
How does this loan forgiveness "fix it" though?
This is exactly my (and several others') thoughts upthread that have yet to be addressed.
The question posed is "do you support a one-time 10-50K student loan forgiveness as an executive order". Proponents of forgiveness on this thread are calling any objection to such an order unsympathetic to the plights of student loan holders. Like if I don't believe an executive order should be used to dish out a bunch of money this one time to a select group of people then I am a horrible person for not caring about the issue, or I don't believe there are major and fatal flaws to the system as it stands.
I bet that if you took the "No" voters here and asked them whether they support long-term college education and loan reform, you would get very different responses. Posing policy change that isn't a band-aid over a bullet hole would be much more conducive to supporting those entrenched in outstanding loans AS WELL AS those facing a decision on whether to attend college in the future.
-
I just heard that 43% of student loan holders never actually finished their degree. That's horrifying.
To me, this means that a lot of those folks probably weren't ready for college, and probably shouldn't have been accepted. They certainly would not have been accepted if the schools themselves were liable for their debt as opposed to, say, the federal government. The system failed them, not the other way around.
What would be the grounds for rejecting them as applicants? Most college applicants look similar on paper and it would be hard to predict who will leave without finishing since there are many reasons, one big one being the cost (hence the loans).
(https://i.imgur.com/DZ5g8BQ.png)
So an A/B HS student with a 1300 SAT score is basically a coin flip to graduate college in 6 years? Seems like that's some shitty predictive validity.
Great data driven post! Those metrics may not be everything, but they certainly show a trend, right? I can’t tell you where to draw the line, but right now there are no lines at all. There aren’t even any discussions about drawing lines. That’s a systematic failure in the US. 18 yo needs 30K federal loan with a 2.5 gpa to go to a shoddy private school. Sure! Sign them up!!!
I think the post above is misrepresenting the data actually. There's a pretty clear trend of higher SAT scores and higher grades leading to college graduation. In the data we have, the right most column groups together all scores higher than 1100. 1300 is MUCH higher than 1100 (twice the range as the earlier categories), so I'd expect if we had more data points that the chance of graduating for a student with a score like this and who gets As and Bs to be higher than the 57% given. (Although we would need better granularity to tell for sure.)
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
How does this loan forgiveness "fix it" though?
This is exactly my (and several others') thoughts upthread that have yet to be addressed.
The question posed is "do you support a one-time 10-50K student loan forgiveness as an executive order". Proponents of forgiveness on this thread are calling any objection to such an order unsympathetic to the plights of student loan holders. Like if I don't believe an executive order should be used to dish out a bunch of money this one time to a select group of people then I am a horrible person for not caring about the issue, or I don't believe there are major and fatal flaws to the system as it stands.
I bet that if you took the "No" voters here and asked them whether they support long-term college education and loan reform, you would get very different responses. Posing policy change that isn't a band-aid over a bullet hole would be much more conducive to supporting those entrenched in outstanding loans AS WELL AS those facing a decision on whether to attend college in the future.
Is there an appetite in congress to complete comprehensive reform? Could anything pass the muster of 60 votes? I think Biden should try, but if he gets stonewalled he should just forgive 10K and move on. I guess there's the politics of what should be done, and then there's the politics of what can be done.
See also; Immigration Reform, Healthcare Reform, Infrastructure Investment, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, etc... very few people would argue that the above issues don't need addressed. Yet, nothing at all was addressed on these matters over the last 10 years.
P.S. Maisy, I brought up my own student loans (and support for forgiveness) as a counterargument to you bringing up your own loans as a reason not to support forgiveness.
JGS
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Most of a society? 20% of US adults have student loans. 48% of those loans are for graduate school, which is not generally something a 17 year old is tricked in to. More than 50% of college students graduate with less than $20,000 in loans (30% with zero). There absolutely are people in over their heads who need help but the devil in the "student loan crisis" is definitely in the details.
I agree we have systemic problems needing to be fixed and a certain relatively small number of borrowers in truly over their heads who need extra help, but blanket loan forgiveness is a rather lazy and wasteful approach that avoids actually fixing the systemic problems. Blanket loan forgiveness is remarkably regressive, disproportionately giving higher earning folks relief they don't typically need. Existing Income Driven Repayment programs that cap payments and forgive balances after 20 or 25 years are better at providing targeted relief to the truly struggling than blanket forgiveness would be. Those programs should be simplified and expanded, along with caps on interest rates, tuition hikes, etc, that would start to control the spiraling costs.
A good overview of the regressive nature of blanket loan forgiveness: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/28/student-loan-forgiveness-repayment-income-regressive/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/28/student-loan-forgiveness-repayment-income-regressive/)
I suspect at least some of the fervor on the left for loan forgiveness is fueled by general frustrations with the overall lack of progress on most all of their other priorities. Forgiveness feels like something of a "magic wand" policy that sidesteps the hard work of actually fixing the underlying problems. I see why it would be tempting to employ that wand but it's not particularly good governance.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
How does this loan forgiveness "fix it" though?
This is exactly my (and several others') thoughts upthread that have yet to be addressed.
The question posed is "do you support a one-time 10-50K student loan forgiveness as an executive order". Proponents of forgiveness on this thread are calling any objection to such an order unsympathetic to the plights of student loan holders. Like if I don't believe an executive order should be used to dish out a bunch of money this one time to a select group of people then I am a horrible person for not caring about the issue, or I don't believe there are major and fatal flaws to the system as it stands.
I bet that if you took the "No" voters here and asked them whether they support long-term college education and loan reform, you would get very different responses. Posing policy change that isn't a band-aid over a bullet hole would be much more conducive to supporting those entrenched in outstanding loans AS WELL AS those facing a decision on whether to attend college in the future.
Is there an appetite in congress to complete comprehensive reform? Could anything pass the muster of 60 votes? I think Biden should try, but if he gets stonewalled he should just forgive 10K and move on. I guess there's the politics of what should be done, and then there's the politics of what can be done.
See also; Immigration Reform, Healthcare Reform, Infrastructure Investment, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, etc... very few people would argue that the above issues don't need addressed. Yet, nothing at all was addressed on these matters over the last 10 years.
P.S. Maisy, I brought up my own student loans (and support for forgiveness) as a counterargument to you bringing up your own loans as a reason not to support forgiveness.
JGS
All good points. Put in this light it does seem reasonable and logical to be pro-forgiveness. My gut reaction is that we shouldn't be kicking the can down the road on ANY of these reforms. I am no expert in politics, but I can't imagine that loan forgiveness will do anything to actually catalyze what really needs to happen in that domain. Thus, I feel that it is counterproductive and am against it.
-
I suspect at least some of the fervor on the left for loan forgiveness is fueled by general frustrations with the overall lack of progress on most all of their other priorities. Forgiveness feels like something of a "magic wand" policy that sidesteps the hard work of actually fixing the underlying problems. I see why it would be tempting to employ that wand but it's not particularly good governance.
A great point, well made.
Some people just clamour so much for perceived equality that they lose sight of the forest for the trees.
Sometimes you have to let people live with the consequences of their choices. We've all made mistakes. I certainly have my regrets, both financial and non-financial. It seems strange to me that we would rehabilitate some mistakes and not others. For sure, if it's causing crippling debt or other threat to life or safety, those mistakes should be forgiven, and I'd be in favour of a student debt amnesty for impoverished students suffering mentally or physically due to the indebtedness. But a general forgiveness for a large cohort that doesn't necessarily need it (in fact some with student debt presumably are happy with that debt since their degree will increase lifetime earnings) - whilst doing nothing to reward those students who haven't made mistakes - seems incredibly unfair to me.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Sure, I'll take a stab.
I don't think millionaires should be able to get those subsidies, but that's not going to stop me from taking advantage of every legal loophole I can.
And that highlights the difference between the proposed idea of student loan forgiveness and ACA subsidies. One is an idea being debated, the other has been the law for years. If you want health insurance and it isn't available through an employer, you have little choice except to purchase it thru the ACA. And if you're income falls in the right range, you get the subsidies. If you lie and say you're income will be too high for the subsidies, you will get the subsidies retroactively when you file your taxes.
Also, is there a good word or phrase that distinguishes between someone who has $1 million in assets and someone who has $900,000,000? The use of the word "millionaires" in the posts above seems like it is aimed more a those with several million dollars or more.
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend - that's a far cry from the "sipping champagne on your yacht" lifestyle that people associate with "millionaires". I would suggest "multi-millionaires" but at $2,000,000 the 4% rule yields $50,000 per year - still not enough to conjure up visions of decadent wealth.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Sure, I'll take a stab.
I don't think millionaires should be able to get those subsidies, but that's not going to stop me from taking advantage of every legal loophole I can.
And that highlights the difference between the proposed idea of student loan forgiveness and ACA subsidies. One is an idea being debated, the other has been the law for years. If you want health insurance and it isn't available through an employer, you have little choice except to purchase it thru the ACA. And if you're income falls in the right range, you get the subsidies. If you lie and say you're income will be too high for the subsidies, you will get the subsidies retroactively when you file your taxes.
Also, is there a good word or phrase that distinguishes between someone who has $1 million in assets and someone who has $900,000,000? The use of the word "millionaires" in the posts above seems like it is aimed more a those with several million dollars or more.
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend - that's a far cry from the "sipping champagne on your yacht" lifestyle that people associate with "millionaires". I would suggest "multi-millionaires" but at $2,000,000 the 4% rule yields $50,000 per year - still not enough to conjure up visions of decadent wealth.
I like that this comment was made on a thread about college education.
(meant as a lighthearted joke, not mean spirited ridicule)
-
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend - that's a far cry from the "sipping champagne on your yacht" lifestyle that people associate with "millionaires". I would suggest "multi-millionaires" but at $2,000,000 the 4% rule yields $50,000 per year - still not enough to conjure up visions of decadent wealth.
Hey, can you explain this part to me?
4% of a $1M is $40K.
And even for a single person, if it was all taxable, the fed taxes would be a little over $3K.
So where'd the other $12K go?
-
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend...
4% of $1 million is $40,000, which is enough to retire comfortably almost anywhere* in America.
* except HCOL metropolises
-
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend - that's a far cry from the "sipping champagne on your yacht" lifestyle that people associate with "millionaires". I would suggest "multi-millionaires" but at $2,000,000 the 4% rule yields $50,000 per year - still not enough to conjure up visions of decadent wealth.
Dividing by 40 != multiplying by 0.04
-
See also; Immigration Reform, Healthcare Reform, Infrastructure Investment, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, etc... very few people would argue that the above issues don't need addressed. Yet, nothing at all was addressed on these matters over the last 10 years.
Healthcare wasn't touched for 10 years because the ACA had just been passed, so you're playing games with that one. Immigration got the DACA, infrastructure got TONS of spending post-recession, voting is already a right for all citizens and administrated by states/cities/counties, minimum wage is similarly covered by the states, counties, and cities. You can't say "nothing was addressed" when you start listing off things that already had action taken as well as things addressed at the state level. It doesn't make sense to have the same minimum wage in San Francisco as you have in Columbus, Ohio, which is why California has its own ($13/hr) and San Francisco has its own ($16.07) above California's, each separate from the $8.80/hour in Ohio.
Immigration and healthcare are issues that have to be addressed at the federal level, there's no way around that. For basically everything else you listed though it's up to the states and many of them have passed laws for all the things you listed and much, much more in the last 10 years. That's one of the greatest things about state governments. All powers that the federal government doesn't have exclusive control over the states are free to take up for themselves. That's America, and it's honestly wonderful. I think too many people are trying to make national issues out of problems that need to be solved at the state and city level.
-
I guess I still think that targeting student loan holders is very suboptimal.
Someone starting college without a ton of money to pay for school can choose from one of two paths.
Path A: Work full-time in a restaurant or retail store or similar lower-skilled job to pay the bills while also attending school. Your grades and time to graduation will probably suffer as a result of spending so much of your time working, but at least you'll graduate with minimal debt.
Path B: Take out maximal loans so that you can focus as much as possible on studying. You'll probably have higher grades and graduate sooner, qualifying for a better job afterward, but you'll have a bunch of loans to pay off once that happens.
Neither path is inherently right or wrong. Everyone will pick one based on their own assessment of which one will best help them achieve their life goals. Different trade-offs exist, you can take a look at them, and make a decision that seems good at the time.
It would be one thing for our elected leaders to say "hey, we didn't subsidize public university tuition enough in recent years, sorry about that, everyone who attended college recently gets a $10,000 tax break this year to make up for it." It's another thing entirely to say "hey people who picked Path B, here's $10,000. People who picked Path A, you get nothing." That completely upends the incentive structure after the fact, and will rightly be seen as unfair by all the people who picked Path A.
For the record I do believe that (public) university tuition should be cheaper, and that grant-based financial assistance should be more available for those who need it. I also think that changing the rules of the game a few years after the game is over should be avoided if at all possible. In this situation I think a better way should be found. Current student loan balance is a poor proxy for the amount someone has been affected by high tuition in the recent past.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
You put it "bluntly" and yet by doing so, you paint a nuanced picture with a broad brush that does not fit the facts. You present the entire situation as an ethical argument - people done a disservice need a moral wrong to be righted, and yet as Samuel described, many people do not fit the narrative you painted - they weren't just 16 year olds making a one time poor financial decision - they continued on to graduate school, after surely having known a little more about the world then. Then, on top of that, it ignores the statistics that people who went to college even who didn't finish are from an overall standpoint not significantly worse off than people who didn't, and people who actually finished are much better off from a career earnings and net worth standpoint. We're going to make a sweeping decision to pay off college debt for people who many times, weren't naive 16 year olds making poor decisions who even if they were, are actually often times as good or better off doing it than not doing it. Yeah, that sounds like a good use of money.
-
Curious how people reconcile the big no on student loan forgiveness stance while being hunky dory with millionaires retiring and engineering their taxable income to be low and cash in on large ACA subsidies?
Sure, I'll take a stab.
I don't think millionaires should be able to get those subsidies, but that's not going to stop me from taking advantage of every legal loophole I can.
And that highlights the difference between the proposed idea of student loan forgiveness and ACA subsidies. One is an idea being debated, the other has been the law for years. If you want health insurance and it isn't available through an employer, you have little choice except to purchase it thru the ACA. And if you're income falls in the right range, you get the subsidies. If you lie and say you're income will be too high for the subsidies, you will get the subsidies retroactively when you file your taxes.
Also, is there a good word or phrase that distinguishes between someone who has $1 million in assets and someone who has $900,000,000? The use of the word "millionaires" in the posts above seems like it is aimed more a those with several million dollars or more.
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend - that's a far cry from the "sipping champagne on your yacht" lifestyle that people associate with "millionaires". I would suggest "multi-millionaires" but at $2,000,000 the 4% rule yields $50,000 per year - still not enough to conjure up visions of decadent wealth.
I like that this comment was made on a thread about college education.
(meant as a lighthearted joke, not mean spirited ridicule)
I wish I could say I was drinking when I did that "math" but sadly I wasn't. I can't even blame my education - it was certainly better than that. Mea culpa!
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
You put it "bluntly" and yet by doing so, you paint a nuanced picture with a broad brush that does not fit the facts. You present the entire situation as an ethical argument - people done a disservice need a moral wrong to be righted, and yet as Samuel described, many people do not fit the narrative you painted - they weren't just 16 year olds making a one time poor financial decision - they continued on to graduate school, after surely having known a little more about the world then. Then, on top of that, it ignores the statistics that people who went to college even who didn't finish are from an overall standpoint not significantly worse off than people who didn't, and people who actually finished are much better off from a career earnings and net worth standpoint. We're going to make a sweeping decision to pay off college debt for people who many times, weren't naive 16 year olds making poor decisions who even if they were, are actually often times as good or better off doing it than not doing it. Yeah, that sounds like a good use of money.
The other thing is, from a moral framework why do we have to pay money to rescue others from their bad choices?
If their bad choices have led to malnutrition or lack of shelter we should pay money to fund services to lift them out of that...but otherwise...if it just causes inconvenience or financial loss (but without penury), why do we rectify it?
I can spot many bad choices, investing and otherwise, that have caused me financial loss too. Can I get a refund for the bad shares I invested in as a 19 year old with no market experience? Or what about the classes I failed in college...I want a refund for that too. Oh and the shitty video games I bought as a kid, I want my $60 back.
-
After all, if you are retired and your income is what you can get from just $1 million, the 4% rule suggests a $25,000 annual spend - that's a far cry from the "sipping champagne on your yacht" lifestyle that people associate with "millionaires". I would suggest "multi-millionaires" but at $2,000,000 the 4% rule yields $50,000 per year - still not enough to conjure up visions of decadent wealth.
Hey, can you explain this part to me?
4% of a $1M is $40K.
And even for a single person, if it was all taxable, the fed taxes would be a little over $3K.
So where'd the other $12K go?
The explanation is easy - I messed up!
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Very well put.
I agree in most cases, poor parenting leads to these student loan problems.
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Very well put.
I agree in most cases, poor parenting leads to these student loan problems.
What happens when there is no choice? No cheap colleges and no way to pay other than taking loans? What does a good parent do then, recommend a kid not go to college?
What's the root cause?
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I mean, they still need to raise their hands and ask permission to go pee.
And then, these kids who aren't entrusted with the capacity of their own bladders, having accrued all this debt that you, the adults, told them it was a good idea to take on, are being told, "Hey, personal responsibility! Pay the fuck up, you mooch! You shouldn't have taken that loan!"
No.
You, the adults who raised them.
You, the society who taught them.
You take the responsibility.
You pay up.
You shouldn't have given children such bad advice.
When one person makes a mistake, we can pretend it's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When most of a society goes that way?
It's a systemic problem and the system owes them to fix it.
Toque.
Very well put.
I agree in most cases, poor parenting leads to these student loan problems.
What happens when there is no choice? No cheap colleges and no way to pay other than taking loans? What does a good parent do then, recommend a kid not go to college?
What's the root cause?
Yes, in that scenario, a parent would help the child do some sort of analysis to determine if college makes sense. Or they can at least talk through other options, such as community college (does community college not exist in this example? you said no cheap colleges, so I wasn't sure what you meant). Of course this makes a lot of assumptions about the parents' own ability, but I guess that's a topic for another thread about the root cause.
There are so many things that get presented in this forum and in life that are not just one option or the other. The options here are not "go to college with huge loans" or "don't go to college". Surely there is some option in between those that can be acceptable.
-
I fully agree with what Toque said, and he definitely summarized it better than I could.
To Kroaler's (and others') points above - these KIDS haven't even fully matured yet. At 16/17 (when you start to shop yourself around to colleges), your brain is years away from fully developing.
To compare the choices that KIDS are making at 16/17/18 to the decision to rent, or to homebuying isn't even in the same ballpark.
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
My situation is so fucking far from unique, the exact same thing happened to my wife (you MUST go to school).
Asking a hormone-addled, exhausted teenager to make a decision that will literally alter the trajectory of their life, and then saddling them with $30k+ in loans that they will carry for their entire lives, is absurd.
I would never expect taxpayers to take on the entire burden of the nation's student loan debt, and I don't have an easy answer, but I do agree that this forum leans hard toward fiscal conservatism and I think that can create blinders to the shitty circumstances that, in this case, both the higher education machine and the US Government itself caused.
I'm so glad you brought up the above (which I bolded and enbiggened)!
Late adolescence (16-18) is a time of brain rewiring/growth specifically related to the prefrontal cortex and risk/reward calculations and long term planning. A 17 year old brain doesn't take in or process information (particularly negative information) the same way a fully matured brain does.
This is just SO important for public policy because in the last 10 years we've learned that 18 year old brains just aren't capable of making the same decisions as 25 year old brains.
I really wanted to highlight your excellent point (and toque's great post!) because I think it is really relevant part of the larger picture.
So by this rationale, it seems better to delay college rather than send unprepared brains/kids to college and then have them tricked with loans and then debate forgiving all or part of them? Or am I misreading what you're implying? What are you suggesting these teenagers do until their brains are developed? Military? Flip burgers? Everyone starts in the trades? Expand duration of secondary school?
I tend to think generally that kids electing to go to community college rather than a 4 year university is a good idea for many for several reasons - but it's still college level coursework (but at least the financial penalty is much less severe). Do you think these teenagers who might not have the brain development for a 4 year university at age 17-18 are better suited for community college or is that decision-making too rigorous as well?
I would think parents could already have talks with their kids about delaying tertiary education. Clearly that's not happening on a wide enough scale to have only those prepared to tackle all of the challenges college presents to be the ones attending. What kinds of public policy are you suggesting?
-
I fully agree with what Toque said, and he definitely summarized it better than I could.
To Kroaler's (and others') points above - these KIDS haven't even fully matured yet. At 16/17 (when you start to shop yourself around to colleges), your brain is years away from fully developing.
To compare the choices that KIDS are making at 16/17/18 to the decision to rent, or to homebuying isn't even in the same ballpark.
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
My situation is so fucking far from unique, the exact same thing happened to my wife (you MUST go to school).
Asking a hormone-addled, exhausted teenager to make a decision that will literally alter the trajectory of their life, and then saddling them with $30k+ in loans that they will carry for their entire lives, is absurd.
I would never expect taxpayers to take on the entire burden of the nation's student loan debt, and I don't have an easy answer, but I do agree that this forum leans hard toward fiscal conservatism and I think that can create blinders to the shitty circumstances that, in this case, both the higher education machine and the US Government itself caused.
I'm so glad you brought up the above (which I bolded and enbiggened)!
Late adolescence (16-18) is a time of brain rewiring/growth specifically related to the prefrontal cortex and risk/reward calculations and long term planning. A 17 year old brain doesn't take in or process information (particularly negative information) the same way a fully matured brain does.
This is just SO important for public policy because in the last 10 years we've learned that 18 year old brains just aren't capable of making the same decisions as 25 year old brains.
I really wanted to highlight your excellent point (and toque's great post!) because I think it is really relevant part of the larger picture.
So by this rationale, it seems better to delay college rather than send unprepared brains/kids to college and then have them tricked with loans and then debate forgiving all or part of them? Or am I misreading what you're implying? What are you suggesting these teenagers do until their brains are developed? Military? Flip burgers? Everyone starts in the trades? Expand duration of secondary school?
I tend to think generally that kids electing to go to community college rather than a 4 year university is a good idea for many for several reasons - but it's still college level coursework (but at least the financial penalty is much less severe). Do you think these teenagers who might not have the brain development for a 4 year university at age 17-18 are better suited for community college or is that decision-making too rigorous as well?
I would think parents could already have talks with their kids about delaying tertiary education. Clearly that's not happening on a wide enough scale to have only those prepared to tackle all of the challenges college presents to be the ones attending. What kinds of public policy are you suggesting?
Who here, Simon, is arguing that we should stop educating children? What a straw man.
What folks are arguing is that you shouldn't systematically saddle a 17 yo or 18 yo with life changing debt just because its easy to do so.
18 yo "adults" with zero income aren't allowed the get a car loan for a new Tesla without co-signatures in the US, but sign 'em right up for 40K in loans just because it's for education.
I agree it starts at home, but we mustachians have to agree we are a minority in the US and in the world.
-
Agreed JGS -
Whether or not you went to college in the 90's - 00's, and if you did, whether or not you personally experienced it, college is "sold" to kids as an experience first. There's literature on academics and course offerings, but just as much time (or for some schools, more) is spent on selling to kids why this particular college/university will be a better experience than all the other crappy second-rate ones you've looked at.
Look at the magnet schools - the Ivy League and the NCAA D1 championship schools - there's no shortage of marketing to kids to try and sell them on the idea that they "get" to be "part of the experience", whether that experience is sitting around grassy manicured lawns in the northeast or watching your team win the championship for the nth time.
It's marketing, to get you (or your kids) to attend, so that your tuition dollars can feed the machine.
There's nothing inherently wrong about schools jockeying for students to attend - that's how the system is designed.
What's wrong is that the crux of the argument to attend often has nothing to do with the real reason to attend.
Worse, what's wrong is the narrative that "you MUST go to College NOW". It's as if we expect that at 17, a Junior in high school, knows exactly what they want to do. There was a time in the distant past where there were far fewer career paths, and most kids knew much earlier what they liked or what they would be good at.
-
I fully agree with what Toque said, and he definitely summarized it better than I could.
To Kroaler's (and others') points above - these KIDS haven't even fully matured yet. At 16/17 (when you start to shop yourself around to colleges), your brain is years away from fully developing.
To compare the choices that KIDS are making at 16/17/18 to the decision to rent, or to homebuying isn't even in the same ballpark.
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
My situation is so fucking far from unique, the exact same thing happened to my wife (you MUST go to school).
Asking a hormone-addled, exhausted teenager to make a decision that will literally alter the trajectory of their life, and then saddling them with $30k+ in loans that they will carry for their entire lives, is absurd.
I would never expect taxpayers to take on the entire burden of the nation's student loan debt, and I don't have an easy answer, but I do agree that this forum leans hard toward fiscal conservatism and I think that can create blinders to the shitty circumstances that, in this case, both the higher education machine and the US Government itself caused.
I'm so glad you brought up the above (which I bolded and enbiggened)!
Late adolescence (16-18) is a time of brain rewiring/growth specifically related to the prefrontal cortex and risk/reward calculations and long term planning. A 17 year old brain doesn't take in or process information (particularly negative information) the same way a fully matured brain does.
This is just SO important for public policy because in the last 10 years we've learned that 18 year old brains just aren't capable of making the same decisions as 25 year old brains.
I really wanted to highlight your excellent point (and toque's great post!) because I think it is really relevant part of the larger picture.
So by this rationale, it seems better to delay college rather than send unprepared brains/kids to college and then have them tricked with loans and then debate forgiving all or part of them? Or am I misreading what you're implying? What are you suggesting these teenagers do until their brains are developed? Military? Flip burgers? Everyone starts in the trades? Expand duration of secondary school?
I tend to think generally that kids electing to go to community college rather than a 4 year university is a good idea for many for several reasons - but it's still college level coursework (but at least the financial penalty is much less severe). Do you think these teenagers who might not have the brain development for a 4 year university at age 17-18 are better suited for community college or is that decision-making too rigorous as well?
I would think parents could already have talks with their kids about delaying tertiary education. Clearly that's not happening on a wide enough scale to have only those prepared to tackle all of the challenges college presents to be the ones attending. What kinds of public policy are you suggesting?
Who here, Simon, is arguing that we should stop education children? What a straw man.
What folks are arguing is that you shouldn't systematically saddle a 17 yo or 18 yo with life changing debt just because its easy to do so.
18 yo "adults" with zero income aren't allowed the get a car loan for a new Tesla's without co-signatures in the US, but sign 'em right up for 40K in loans just because it's for education.
I agree it starts at home, but we mustachians have to agree we are a minority in the US and in the world.
I feel like the argument about 18 year old and mental maturity also plays into other things too, like the military, or the smoking age. If we are saying that 18 year olds aren't mature enough to sign for student loans, how can say they are old enough to make even bigger life changing decisions, like entering the military?
-
I took out five figures in loans and began attending college at 17. I could not drive legally after 9pm until I turned 18. But, I was supposed to know better apparently?
-
I fully agree with what Toque said, and he definitely summarized it better than I could.
To Kroaler's (and others') points above - these KIDS haven't even fully matured yet. At 16/17 (when you start to shop yourself around to colleges), your brain is years away from fully developing.
To compare the choices that KIDS are making at 16/17/18 to the decision to rent, or to homebuying isn't even in the same ballpark.
Again, anecdotes are a dime-a-dozen in contentious issues, but when I was nearing graduation from high school, my parents not only told me I MUST go to college, but they also then told me that I MUST take out loans because neither I nor they would be able to afford to pay in full for college.
At 17, I cared more about going to work to make money, and hanging out with my friends.
My situation is so fucking far from unique, the exact same thing happened to my wife (you MUST go to school).
Asking a hormone-addled, exhausted teenager to make a decision that will literally alter the trajectory of their life, and then saddling them with $30k+ in loans that they will carry for their entire lives, is absurd.
I would never expect taxpayers to take on the entire burden of the nation's student loan debt, and I don't have an easy answer, but I do agree that this forum leans hard toward fiscal conservatism and I think that can create blinders to the shitty circumstances that, in this case, both the higher education machine and the US Government itself caused.
I'm so glad you brought up the above (which I bolded and enbiggened)!
Late adolescence (16-18) is a time of brain rewiring/growth specifically related to the prefrontal cortex and risk/reward calculations and long term planning. A 17 year old brain doesn't take in or process information (particularly negative information) the same way a fully matured brain does.
This is just SO important for public policy because in the last 10 years we've learned that 18 year old brains just aren't capable of making the same decisions as 25 year old brains.
I really wanted to highlight your excellent point (and toque's great post!) because I think it is really relevant part of the larger picture.
So by this rationale, it seems better to delay college rather than send unprepared brains/kids to college and then have them tricked with loans and then debate forgiving all or part of them? Or am I misreading what you're implying? What are you suggesting these teenagers do until their brains are developed? Military? Flip burgers? Everyone starts in the trades? Expand duration of secondary school?
I tend to think generally that kids electing to go to community college rather than a 4 year university is a good idea for many for several reasons - but it's still college level coursework (but at least the financial penalty is much less severe). Do you think these teenagers who might not have the brain development for a 4 year university at age 17-18 are better suited for community college or is that decision-making too rigorous as well?
I would think parents could already have talks with their kids about delaying tertiary education. Clearly that's not happening on a wide enough scale to have only those prepared to tackle all of the challenges college presents to be the ones attending. What kinds of public policy are you suggesting?
Who here, Simon, is arguing that we should stop education children? What a straw man.
What folks are arguing is that you shouldn't systematically saddle a 17 yo or 18 yo with life changing debt just because its easy to do so.
18 yo "adults" with zero income aren't allowed the get a car loan for a new Tesla's without co-signatures in the US, but sign 'em right up for 40K in loans just because it's for education.
I agree it starts at home, but we mustachians have to agree we are a minority in the US and in the world.
I was just asking for clarification about brain development and what that means in practical terms. I've never considered that and am curious how that would impact policy as mentioned by @StarBright . I didn't argue stopping education. I was asking since college is "sold" to kids (and parents!) as an experience first - to explore delaying or other options. I don't think it's 4 year university with loans up to your eyeballs or nothing when you're 18. I certainly thought so at one time and still took the plunge. I don't think the particular policy that is the subject of this thread is the best way to handle this issue.
I mean, I certainly wasn't prepared for the financial impact of going to university (nor were my parents) and just borrowed for the whole schmear. I/we were ignorant at the time but even still knew this would have to be paid back "someday". In fact this ignorance is what pushed me later on to be interested in personal finance as I didn't want my future adult self to be as clueless about retirement and other finance matters as I was when I entered college (or for any future kids to be in the dark as well). My parents' brains were completely developed, perhaps mine wasn't but we were both bad with the time value of money and opportunity costs involved. I'm still paying my loans back and am against any type of largescale student loan forgiveness (especially one coming from an exec order). While this is just my opinion, I (and my parents) should've known better. I am against it for multiple reasons but that doesn't mean I'm against other policies, ways of changing the system, expectations, teenage personal finance planning becoming the norm in public schools, counseling, parental guidance, allocation of public funds, how loans are distributed, interest rates, etc. This is a serious issue and while I personally think I should've known better, there are myriad ways to address it rather than a one-time Band-Aid that will have to be repeatedly applied on the taxpayer's dime. I just think the specific subject of this topic would be bad policy. By the results of the poll, nearly 3/5 agree with that.
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
-
I feel like the argument about 18 year old and mental maturity also plays into other things too, like the military, or the smoking age. If we are saying that 18 year olds aren't mature enough to sign for student loans, how can say they are old enough to make even bigger life changing decisions, like entering the military?
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with ya.
Smoking should be made illegal entirely or ramped up to age of 25. Military as well. Heck, lets let the old men who start the wars fight 'em instead. They can smoke as many cigarettes as desired as they do so.
-
I feel like the argument about 18 year old and mental maturity also plays into other things too, like the military, or the smoking age. If we are saying that 18 year olds aren't mature enough to sign for student loans, how can say they are old enough to make even bigger life changing decisions, like entering the military?
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with ya.
Smoking should be made illegal entirely or ramped up to age of 25. Military as well. Heck, lets let the old men who start the wars fight 'em instead.
Gonna be tricky to get marines then. They don't allow recruitment after 28 years old. :P
-
I feel like the argument about 18 year old and mental maturity also plays into other things too, like the military, or the smoking age. If we are saying that 18 year olds aren't mature enough to sign for student loans, how can say they are old enough to make even bigger life changing decisions, like entering the military?
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with ya.
Smoking should be made illegal entirely or ramped up to age of 25. Military as well. Heck, lets let the old men who start the wars fight 'em instead.
Gonna be tricky to get marines then. They don't allow recruitment after 28 years old. :P
It'd be real hard to get 40 year olds to attack the machine gun bunker. Now 18 year olds, it'd be a different story. I was wonderfully invincible when I was 18 (alas).
-
There are a lot of problems with higher education in America. Student loan forgiveness solves exactly zero of those problems. Additionally, it gives money to people who are more likely to have a higher income than people who didn't attend college.
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
Reminds me of the Keanu Reeves quote in Parenthood,
"I had a man around. He used to wake me up every morning by flicking lit cigarettes at my head. He'd say, 'Hey, asshole, get up and make me breakfast.' You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."
-
I took out five figures in loans and began attending college at 17. I could not drive legally after 9pm until I turned 18. But, I was supposed to know better apparently?
It depends?
If you are an A student with an acceptance letter from a top tier school, no major impediments in your family life, raised in an environment where going to college is normal and you can draw on the experiences of your social circle, it is a completely rational choice.
If you are a C student with an acceptance letter from a questionable private school, difficult social dynamics, and very few or nobody to turn to for advice, yeah, that should be a pretty obvious no. This is what 60% of high school graduates decide.
If you are somewhere in between, well that's a very personal decision with high stakes, and you're not a complete idiot, so do a modicum of research? You know, what hundreds of thousands of college bound kids do every year, and a highly valued life skill in general.
Reading some of the posters here you'd think that millions and millions of people just woke up one fine morning during their senior year, decided without any prior information that they wanted to go college, rolled into the loan store and signed the first papers that were placed in front of them. It's infantilizing.
-
I was just asking for clarification about brain development and what that means in practical terms. I've never considered that and am curious how that would impact policy as mentioned by @StarBright . I didn't argue stopping education. I was asking since college is "sold" to kids (and parents!) as an experience first - to explore delaying or other options. I don't think it's 4 year university with loans up to your eyeballs or nothing when you're 18. I certainly thought so at one time and still took the plunge. I don't think the particular policy that is the subject of this thread is the best way to handle this issue.
I mean, I certainly wasn't prepared for the financial impact of going to university (nor were my parents) and just borrowed for the whole schmear. I/we were ignorant at the time but even still knew this would have to be paid back "someday". In fact this ignorance is what pushed me later on to be interested in personal finance as I didn't want my future adult self to be as clueless about retirement and other finance matters as I was when I entered college (or for any future kids to be in the dark as well). My parents' brains were completely developed, perhaps mine wasn't but we were both bad with the time value of money and opportunity costs involved. I'm still paying my loans back and am against any type of largescale student loan forgiveness (especially one coming from an exec order). While this is just my opinion, I (and my parents) should've known better. I am against it for multiple reasons but that doesn't mean I'm against other policies, ways of changing the system, expectations, teenage personal finance planning becoming the norm in public schools, counseling, parental guidance, allocation of public funds, how loans are distributed, interest rates, etc. This is a serious issue and while I personally think I should've known better, there are myriad ways to address it rather than a one-time Band-Aid that will have to be repeatedly applied on the taxpayer's dime. I just think the specific subject of this topic would be bad policy. By the results of the poll, nearly 3/5 agree with that.
So as therethere just mentioned, driving is actually a place where public policy has changed based on neuroscience. 20 years ago I could drive anywhere I wanted with a car full of friends as soon as I was 16. I also had four friends in high school that died in car crashes. Turns out teenage brains don't assess risk like older brains. Now there are much greater restrictions on teenage drivers.
There are legal implications such as how to treat adolescents when it comes to things like drugs, alcohol, petty theft, and more serious crimes as well: juvenile crime policy in general. You can't drink till you're 21, but you can be charged as an adult in most states when you are 14. But the research can also impact laws regarding the statutory age at which an adolescent can reasonably make decisions about their own health and welfare -including sex. Confoundingly, age of consent laws are frequently based on mental but not chronological age.
Beyond setting law, it can also be useful for crafting public messaging and incentives around risk taking activities.
As slappy mentioned, the military is obviously another area where neuroscience on brain development could be helpful. Beyond the question of whether or not 18 years should allowed/encouraged to enlist - how does combat affect a still developing brain? Should younger enlistees be prohibited from certain positions or missions?
Heck - how does football affect a still developing brain?
I really wanted to highlight chemistk's excellent point because there have been a ton of people on this thread who are like "17 year olds know what they are getting into." - and they actually don't. Obviously there are outliers - but in general you can present risk and reward info to a 17 year old and a 25 year old and they will not process it the same way. Really simply put, in the teenager the part of the brain that yells "this is a risk!!" gets the volume turned way down, and the part that says "this could be great!" is louder.
I think there are all sorts of ways we could harness that developmental period in a way that is good for everyone; specifically I am thinking about something like a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps (which was originally for 18-25 year olds!) - but there would have to be political will for it. And there obviously isn't because we're talking about Biden using an EO to forgive student loan debt. There isn't a unified political will on anything regarding education in our country.
Gah- sorry to babble - but I find the whole topic really interesting!
-
I took out five figures in loans and began attending college at 17. I could not drive legally after 9pm until I turned 18. But, I was supposed to know better apparently?
It depends?
If you are an A student with an acceptance letter from a top tier school, no major impediments in your family life, raised in an environment where going to college is normal and you can draw on the experiences of your social circle, it is a completely rational choice.
If you are a C student with an acceptance letter from a questionable private school, difficult social dynamics, and very few or nobody to turn to for advice, yeah, that should be a pretty obvious no. This is what 60% of high school graduates decide.
If you are somewhere in between, well that's a very personal decision with high stakes, and you're not a complete idiot, so do a modicum of research? You know, what hundreds of thousands of college bound kids do every year, and a highly valued life skill in general.
Reading some of the posters here you'd think that millions and millions of people just woke up one fine morning during their senior year, decided without any prior information that they wanted to go college, rolled into the loan store and signed the first papers that were placed in front of them. It's infantilizing.
At what age should a person be able to decide to have sex with someone else? Or to drink? To do weed?
-
I took out five figures in loans and began attending college at 17. I could not drive legally after 9pm until I turned 18. But, I was supposed to know better apparently?
It depends?
If you are an A student with an acceptance letter from a top tier school, no major impediments in your family life, raised in an environment where going to college is normal and you can draw on the experiences of your social circle, it is a completely rational choice.
If you are a C student with an acceptance letter from a questionable private school, difficult social dynamics, and very few or nobody to turn to for advice, yeah, that should be a pretty obvious no. This is what 60% of high school graduates decide.
If you are somewhere in between, well that's a very personal decision with high stakes, and you're not a complete idiot, so do a modicum of research? You know, what hundreds of thousands of college bound kids do every year, and a highly valued life skill in general.
Reading some of the posters here you'd think that millions and millions of people just woke up one fine morning during their senior year, decided without any prior information that they wanted to go college, rolled into the loan store and signed the first papers that were placed in front of them. It's infantilizing.
At what age should a person be able to decide to have sex with someone else? Or to drink? To do weed?
15/18/18.
-
I took out five figures in loans and began attending college at 17. I could not drive legally after 9pm until I turned 18. But, I was supposed to know better apparently?
It depends?
If you are an A student with an acceptance letter from a top tier school, no major impediments in your family life, raised in an environment where going to college is normal and you can draw on the experiences of your social circle, it is a completely rational choice.
If you are a C student with an acceptance letter from a questionable private school, difficult social dynamics, and very few or nobody to turn to for advice, yeah, that should be a pretty obvious no. This is what 60% of high school graduates decide.
If you are somewhere in between, well that's a very personal decision with high stakes, and you're not a complete idiot, so do a modicum of research? You know, what hundreds of thousands of college bound kids do every year, and a highly valued life skill in general.
Reading some of the posters here you'd think that millions and millions of people just woke up one fine morning during their senior year, decided without any prior information that they wanted to go college, rolled into the loan store and signed the first papers that were placed in front of them. It's infantilizing.
At what age should a person be able to decide to have sex with someone else? Or to drink? To do weed?
15/18/18.
What are you basing those numbers on?
There's some evidence suggesting that using pot is more dangerous to pre-25 undeveloped minds: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796318/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796318/)
I personally, was totally unprepared to have sex at 15. But that aside . . . do you think that a 15 year old having sex with a 30 year old (as would be perfectly legal and fine under the ages you propose) is likely to result in a good long term situation for the child involved? Why 15, and not 14 or 13?
I'm always curious how people come up with these (seemingly) arbitrary numbers.
-
I was just asking for clarification about brain development and what that means in practical terms. I've never considered that and am curious how that would impact policy as mentioned by @StarBright . I didn't argue stopping education. I was asking since college is "sold" to kids (and parents!) as an experience first - to explore delaying or other options. I don't think it's 4 year university with loans up to your eyeballs or nothing when you're 18. I certainly thought so at one time and still took the plunge. I don't think the particular policy that is the subject of this thread is the best way to handle this issue.
I mean, I certainly wasn't prepared for the financial impact of going to university (nor were my parents) and just borrowed for the whole schmear. I/we were ignorant at the time but even still knew this would have to be paid back "someday". In fact this ignorance is what pushed me later on to be interested in personal finance as I didn't want my future adult self to be as clueless about retirement and other finance matters as I was when I entered college (or for any future kids to be in the dark as well). My parents' brains were completely developed, perhaps mine wasn't but we were both bad with the time value of money and opportunity costs involved. I'm still paying my loans back and am against any type of largescale student loan forgiveness (especially one coming from an exec order). While this is just my opinion, I (and my parents) should've known better. I am against it for multiple reasons but that doesn't mean I'm against other policies, ways of changing the system, expectations, teenage personal finance planning becoming the norm in public schools, counseling, parental guidance, allocation of public funds, how loans are distributed, interest rates, etc. This is a serious issue and while I personally think I should've known better, there are myriad ways to address it rather than a one-time Band-Aid that will have to be repeatedly applied on the taxpayer's dime. I just think the specific subject of this topic would be bad policy. By the results of the poll, nearly 3/5 agree with that.
So as therethere just mentioned, driving is actually a place where public policy has changed based on neuroscience. 20 years ago I could drive anywhere I wanted with a car full of friends as soon as I was 16. I also had four friends in high school that died in car crashes. Turns out teenage brains don't assess risk like older brains. Now there are much greater restrictions on teenage drivers.
There are legal implications such as how to treat adolescents when it comes to things like drugs, alcohol, petty theft, and more serious crimes as well: juvenile crime policy in general. You can't drink till you're 21, but you can be charged as an adult in most states when you are 14. But the research can also impact laws regarding the statutory age at which an adolescent can reasonably make decisions about their own health and welfare -including sex. Confoundingly, age of consent laws are frequently based on mental but not chronological age.
Beyond setting law, it can also be useful for crafting public messaging and incentives around risk taking activities.
As slappy mentioned, the military is obviously another area where neuroscience on brain development could be helpful. Beyond the question of whether or not 18 years should allowed/encouraged to enlist - how does combat affect a still developing brain? Should younger enlistees be prohibited from certain positions or missions?
Heck - how does football affect a still developing brain?
I really wanted to highlight chemistk's excellent point because there have been a ton of people on this thread who are like "17 year olds know what they are getting into." - and they actually don't. Obviously there are outliers - but in general you can present risk and reward info to a 17 year old and a 25 year old and they will not process it the same way. Really simply put, in the teenager the part of the brain that yells "this is a risk!!" gets the volume turned way down, and the part that says "this could be great!" is louder.
I think there are all sorts of ways we could harness that developmental period in a way that is good for everyone; specifically I am thinking about something like a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps - but there would have to be political will for it. And there obviously isn't because we're talking about Biden using an EO to forgive student loan debt. There isn't a unified political will on anything regarding education in our country.
Gah- sorry to babble - but I find the whole topic really interesting!
I agree, this tangent is fascinating.
-
I took out five figures in loans and began attending college at 17. I could not drive legally after 9pm until I turned 18. But, I was supposed to know better apparently?
It depends?
If you are an A student with an acceptance letter from a top tier school, no major impediments in your family life, raised in an environment where going to college is normal and you can draw on the experiences of your social circle, it is a completely rational choice.
If you are a C student with an acceptance letter from a questionable private school, difficult social dynamics, and very few or nobody to turn to for advice, yeah, that should be a pretty obvious no. This is what 60% of high school graduates decide.
If you are somewhere in between, well that's a very personal decision with high stakes, and you're not a complete idiot, so do a modicum of research? You know, what hundreds of thousands of college bound kids do every year, and a highly valued life skill in general.
Reading some of the posters here you'd think that millions and millions of people just woke up one fine morning during their senior year, decided without any prior information that they wanted to go college, rolled into the loan store and signed the first papers that were placed in front of them. It's infantilizing.
At what age should a person be able to decide to have sex with someone else? Or to drink? To do weed?
15/18/18.
What are you basing those numbers on?
There's some evidence suggesting that using pot is more dangerous to pre-25 undeveloped minds: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796318/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796318/)
I personally, was totally unprepared to have sex at 15. But that aside . . . do you think that a 15 year old having sex with a 30 year old (as would be perfectly legal and fine under the ages you propose) is likely to result in a good long term situation for the child involved? Why 15, and not 14 or 13?
I'm always curious how people come up with these (seemingly) arbitrary numbers.
No, I don't think that.
The goal of these numbers isn't to provide an ideal target age or cover every edge case, it's to provide a floor. A lot of countries have the age of consent around 15 and the drinking age at 18 and the sky isn't falling, because they have other laws to deal with the edge cases.
I don't see why this is relevant to the problem of college debt.
-
I just want my refund for the bad shares I purchased as a 19 year old.
I also want a refund for the international holiday I got sucked into taking as a 20 year old. Man that tour was way overpriced.
If we're forgiving young brains for mistakes let's just do it properly and forgive everyone's mistakes. Rather than making an arbitrary selection. Right? People who began smoking at 18, had a kid at 20, or went bankrupt at 21 I'm sure will be interested in getting forgiveness too.
-
I just want my refund for the bad shares I purchased as a 19 year old.
I also want a refund for the international holiday I got sucked into taking as a 20 year old. Man that tour was way overpriced.
If we're forgiving young brains for mistakes let's just do it properly and forgive everyone's mistakes. Rather than making an arbitrary selection. Right? People who began smoking at 18, had a kid at 20, or went bankrupt at 21 I'm sure will be interested in getting forgiveness too.
These are terrible examples.
-
I just want my refund for the bad shares I purchased as a 19 year old.
I also want a refund for the international holiday I got sucked into taking as a 20 year old. Man that tour was way overpriced.
If we're forgiving young brains for mistakes let's just do it properly and forgive everyone's mistakes. Rather than making an arbitrary selection. Right? People who began smoking at 18, had a kid at 20, or went bankrupt at 21 I'm sure will be interested in getting forgiveness too.
I did get refunded on my bad shares I purchased at 19. It was like 7 years later via class action lawsuit.....
Also I'm not sure international holiday is a bad choice. I kinda wish I had that memory...
-
I just want my refund for the bad shares I purchased as a 19 year old.
I also want a refund for the international holiday I got sucked into taking as a 20 year old. Man that tour was way overpriced.
If we're forgiving young brains for mistakes let's just do it properly and forgive everyone's mistakes. Rather than making an arbitrary selection. Right? People who began smoking at 18, had a kid at 20, or went bankrupt at 21 I'm sure will be interested in getting forgiveness too.
These are terrible examples.
Not only that, but as can be seen by the raw poll results, the bipartisan debate we've had here has resulted in probably the best 'compromise' a society of different thinkers would be able to come up with - roughly 60% opposed/40% in favor of SLF. Granted, as has been mentioned before, this forum tends to be fiscally conservative so among a random population, it's more likely to be 50/50.
But even then, nobody is arguing that folks should be absolved of every past mistake. SLF, even at $10k, is a shaky thing anyway but it's obviously A) a means to fulfill campaign promises and B) another attempt to stimulate the economy, much much more so than to actually provide relief to people struggling with student loans.
The constantly missed (or overlooked?) point is the exact tangent this discussion has veered into - the whole college machine is fucked, but so is so much else. This is just one shitty flavor in a freezer case of disgusting societal aberrations.
SLF won't solve a damn thing, and everyone who currently owes money for student loans isn't going to be genuinely helped by it - the lost returns on the interest and principal that are paid to keep the lights on in the D1 NCAA college stadiums far exceed even the $50k mark, and nobody is getting that back, ever.
All that being said, I'm still in favor of $10k (and better if it's targeted rather than helicoptered).
-
I just want my refund for the bad shares I purchased as a 19 year old.
I also want a refund for the international holiday I got sucked into taking as a 20 year old. Man that tour was way overpriced.
If we're forgiving young brains for mistakes let's just do it properly and forgive everyone's mistakes. Rather than making an arbitrary selection. Right? People who began smoking at 18, had a kid at 20, or went bankrupt at 21 I'm sure will be interested in getting forgiveness too.
These are terrible examples.
Not only that, but as can be seen by the raw poll results, the bipartisan debate we've had here has resulted in probably the best 'compromise' a society of different thinkers would be able to come up with - roughly 60% opposed/40% in favor of SLF. Granted, as has been mentioned before, this forum tends to be fiscally conservative so among a random population, it's more likely to be 50/50.
But even then, nobody is arguing that folks should be absolved of every past mistake. SLF, even at $10k, is a shaky thing anyway but it's obviously A) a means to fulfill campaign promises and B) another attempt to stimulate the economy, much much more so than to actually provide relief to people struggling with student loans.
The constantly missed (or overlooked?) point is the exact tangent this discussion has veered into - the whole college machine is fucked, but so is so much else. This is just one shitty flavor in a freezer case of disgusting societal aberrations.
SLF won't solve a damn thing, and everyone who currently owes money for student loans isn't going to be genuinely helped by it - the lost returns on the interest and principal that are paid to keep the lights on in the D1 NCAA college stadiums far exceed even the $50k mark, and nobody is getting that back, ever.
All that being said, I'm still in favor of $10k (and better if it's targeted rather than helicoptered).
This whole post was wonderful and although I don't agree with the end point, I think we can all agree that we are all so dang tired of poop popsicle policies.
-
In a timely post, a friend of mine just posted that her daughter has gotten her first college acceptance letter. Her dream school. A decent private college, on par with say UIC or Loyola Chicago, but with an abysmal graduation rate of 66%. Even after nearly $20k a year in scholarships she'll still probably have to take out $25k a year in loans for an international studies degree. And, publicly, everyone is cheering her on. When you're 17 years old and everyone is telling you "Congratulations" then I can understand why you might not think this is such a bad thing.
-
In a timely post, a friend of mine just posted that her daughter has gotten her first college acceptance letter. Her dream school. A decent private college, on par with say UIC or Loyola Chicago, but with an abysmal graduation rate of 66%. Even after nearly $20k a year in scholarships she'll still probably have to take out $25k a year in loans for an international studies degree. And, publicly, everyone is cheering her on. When you're 17 years old and everyone is telling you "Congratulations" then I can understand why you might not think this is such a bad thing.
I don't think the majority of people here are arguing that it's not a problem.
My big issue is that a payout doesn't really solve anything.
10k isn't a life changing amount of money. If 10k is crushing you, that's a little silly.
Additionally if you are 250k deep and can't pass your bar exam, 10k also doesn't really help you.
Additionally - even without government action, this problem *should* sort itself out once those saddled with student loans advise their children on what to do. I doubt they will advocate expensive university and large loans.
To be clear I don't think waiting is the best option, I just wanted to point out that it should eventually sort itself out by the next generation......
-
I just want my refund for the bad shares I purchased as a 19 year old.
I also want a refund for the international holiday I got sucked into taking as a 20 year old. Man that tour was way overpriced.
If we're forgiving young brains for mistakes let's just do it properly and forgive everyone's mistakes. Rather than making an arbitrary selection. Right? People who began smoking at 18, had a kid at 20, or went bankrupt at 21 I'm sure will be interested in getting forgiveness too.
These are terrible examples.
Not only that, but as can be seen by the raw poll results, the bipartisan debate we've had here has resulted in probably the best 'compromise' a society of different thinkers would be able to come up with - roughly 60% opposed/40% in favor of SLF. Granted, as has been mentioned before, this forum tends to be fiscally conservative so among a random population, it's more likely to be 50/50.
But even then, nobody is arguing that folks should be absolved of every past mistake. SLF, even at $10k, is a shaky thing anyway but it's obviously A) a means to fulfill campaign promises and B) another attempt to stimulate the economy, much much more so than to actually provide relief to people struggling with student loans.
The constantly missed (or overlooked?) point is the exact tangent this discussion has veered into - the whole college machine is fucked, but so is so much else. This is just one shitty flavor in a freezer case of disgusting societal aberrations.
SLF won't solve a damn thing, and everyone who currently owes money for student loans isn't going to be genuinely helped by it - the lost returns on the interest and principal that are paid to keep the lights on in the D1 NCAA college stadiums far exceed even the $50k mark, and nobody is getting that back, ever.
All that being said, I'm still in favor of $10k (and better if it's targeted rather than helicoptered).
This whole post was wonderful and although I don't agree with the end point, I think we can all agree that we are all so dang tired of poop popsicle policies.
So many poop popsicles.
I'll clarify - I'm for the $10k for reasons that aren't face value. I do earnestly believe that the money solves nothing.
But right now, there's a generation of people who are hungry for something - some acknowledgement that the sunsetting generation (boomers mostly, apologies to anyone in this thread who identifies as such) isn't just going to ignore them again.
I like to think of the SLF as a political olive branch. "Hey, we really screwed you guys over with the rhetoric you were fed these last 30 years, and with the fact that there have been endless empty promises - take this cash as a sign that we do want to recognize that your generation(s) has been feed shitsicles.
Few on this forum are chomping at the bit for that sort of political grandstanding, but I think the Democrats would be remiss to not offer such an olive branch, because the Bernies/Yangs/AOCs are coming and just like the Trump faction of the conservatives, I do really believe there will come a time when that faction of the Democrats will declare that enough is enough.
It's a slippery slope though, and to Bloop's (and others') points - when you give a mouse a $10k 'reparation' cookie.....
-
In a timely post, a friend of mine just posted that her daughter has gotten her first college acceptance letter. Her dream school. A decent private college, on par with say UIC or Loyola Chicago, but with an abysmal graduation rate of 66%. Even after nearly $20k a year in scholarships she'll still probably have to take out $25k a year in loans for an international studies degree. And, publicly, everyone is cheering her on. When you're 17 years old and everyone is telling you "Congratulations" then I can understand why you might not think this is such a bad thing.
I don't think the majority of people here are arguing that it's not a problem.
My big issue is that a payout doesn't really solve anything.
10k isn't a life changing amount of money. If 10k is crushing you, that's a little silly.
Additionally if you are 250k deep and can't pass your bar exam, 10k also doesn't really help you.
Additionally - even without government action, this problem *should* sort itself out once those saddled with student loans advise their children on what to do. I doubt they will advocate expensive university and large loans.
To be clear I don't think waiting is the best option, I just wanted to point out that it should eventually sort itself out by the next generation......
I'm not sure that it will. I'm among the older millennials (one of the ones to graduate college before the Great Shitshow of 2008). The attitude I see prevalent among most of my peers is either "I had to take out loans so my kids should too" or "I've been stretched too thin paying my loans to save anything for my kids to go to college." Neither is a great option. Maybe the younger millennials are encouraging their kids to pursue more sustainable options. I hope so. I still believe that the only thing that's going to sort this out is to make student loan availability less like a firehose and more like a water fountain.
-
If anyone in government were actually trying to address the student loan problem rather than simply use it to motivate votes, the first two actions would be:
- Stop talking about "debt forgiveness" and start talking about "writing off bad debt." Someone who went to the branch campus of podunk state for a semester before dropping out and has never made a single payment isn't going to repay that $7400 loan. Just write it off and stop throwing good money after bad by pursuing it, not because it's cruel, but because it's a bad use of public resources. The Sec. of Ed's discretionary powers under the Higher Education Act of 1965 were included for exactly this purpose.
- Lower the darn interest rates on all DoE loans, especially the grad loans that are driving the debt bubble, and provide a meaningful federal refinancing option for existing debt. Direct Grad loans are currently at 4.3% fixed, while undergrad loans are at 2.75%. Meanwhile, there are billions of dollars in federal loans outstanding at 5-7% with no refinancing option available that doesn't require forfeiting all existing federal loan programs and protections like the current forbearance, IDR, and PSLF. Right now the typical student loan borrower is effectively stuck in debt that's multiple points higher than the average mortgage, and we've never (ever!) seen that in a sustained manner in American history. Current borrowers are getting hosed on interest rates, while their parents and grandparents often enjoyed rates below inflation, a boring but important intergenerational inequality.
If we're serious about addressing existing student debt, we'll write off the stuff that's never getting repaid, and we'll reduce the rates on remaining debt that's fixed way higher than the current rate environment.
The moralizing and pandering and virtue signaling around student debt is not a good faith effort to actually solve the problem.
-
Additionally - even without government action, this problem *should* sort itself out once those saddled with student loans advise their children on what to do. I doubt they will advocate expensive university and large loans.
To be clear I don't think waiting is the best option, I just wanted to point out that it should eventually sort itself out by the next generation......
The problem sorting itself out in the next generation is my #1 concern. What happens to the whole society when the prevailing wisdom passed on to young people is "Don't go to college, because those people never escape the debt."?
What would be the point of doing well in high school, or learning anything other than a trade?
What happens to a society when the level of education drops by 4 years in just one generation?
What happens when the entire next generation tries to crowd into jobs that don't require a degree? Won't wages go down?
How pissed will people be when the vast majority of the population is stuck earning just above minimum wage while the educated elites take an even large slice of society's production?
How does one find a doctor, a CPA, a lawyer, or an engineer in such a world? Do we start accepting certificates in lieu of degrees?
What happens to culture when 1% of the population has ever read Shakespeare, knows how many Senators there are, or is aware of the Trail of Tears?
What happens to the economy when we have the educational demographics of Mexico?
-
I am in favor of student loan forgiveness as long as it is accompanied by student loan reform.
Student loans don't have the consumer protections that every other kind of loan, including other government loans, have. These protections need to be returned to student loans before we forgive them, or we are just grabbing a mop before we turn the bathwater off.
And honestly, deferment options hurt rather than help many students, and current student loan forgiveness programs look a lot like indentured servitude...
There are plenty of problems with the program, and the amount people owe is only a result of those problems. Forgiveness needs to be accompanied by real problem solving.
The Student Loan Scam by Alan Michaele Collinge is a bit outdated, but it shows plenty of problems within the whole program that really need to be addressed. Congress is surprisingly okay with turning a blind eye to these issues, when they are willing to support forgiveness. Could it be a bit of virtue signaling?
-
Additionally - even without government action, this problem *should* sort itself out once those saddled with student loans advise their children on what to do. I doubt they will advocate expensive university and large loans.
To be clear I don't think waiting is the best option, I just wanted to point out that it should eventually sort itself out by the next generation......
The problem sorting itself out in the next generation is my #1 concern. What happens to the whole society when the prevailing wisdom passed on to young people is "Don't go to college, because those people never escape the debt."?
- The prevailing wisdom needs to shift to "don't go to college for a good time, go to college to learn something that will make you more productive"
What would be the point of doing well in high school, or learning anything other than a trade?
- A world not quite so dependent on a college degree wouldn't be all bad.
What happens to a society when the level of education drops by 4 years in just one generation?
- No one is suggesting no one goes to college.
What happens when the entire next generation tries to crowd into jobs that don't require a degree? Won't wages go down?
- Like they've gone down for people with meaningless college degrees?
How pissed will people be when the vast majority of the population is stuck earning just above minimum wage while the educated elites take an even large slice of society's production?
- Probably less pissed than they are about wasting 4-6 six years to get a degree the elites told them they had to have to do a job they could have done without it.
How does one find a doctor, a CPA, a lawyer, or an engineer in such a world? Do we start accepting certificates in lieu of degrees?
- Those are all degrees where people can pay back their student loans without a problem.
What happens to culture when 1% of the population has ever read Shakespeare, knows how many Senators there are, or is aware of the Trail of Tears?
- If you haven't learned all of those things before finishing high school you have no business going to college.
What happens to the economy when we have the educational demographics of Mexico?
- Just looking at the average greatly distorts reality. It's true that the average college grad makes more than the average person without a degree, but that ignores how much the engineers, cpas, and lawyers are distorting the average. There are degrees available today that actually lower lifetime earnings. I have a friend who borrowed 100k to get a PHD in Shakespearian literature. In a rational world that wouldn't be possible.
-
I just figured out what the above poster did. They added comments in the quotes. They shoulda been bolded or marked somehow.
-
Usually simple solutions are weak thinking but I think this really is a simple problem to solve.
Make student loans bankruptable and comparable to all other loans.
The free market will adjust appropriately the amounts that can be borrowed based on risk.
Requesting 25k and pursuing STEM degree with a 1200 sat and 4.0 - yes we'll loan on that risk.
Requesting 50k for party U into a degree with low average pay and you are a low grade student? - maybe we don't take that risk.
I'm sure there will be unintended consequences, but look at the current set of unintended consequences.
The price and need of higher education would quickly sort itself out.
-
Usually simple solutions are weak thinking but I think this really is a simple problem to solve.
Make student loans bankruptable and comparable to all other loans.
The free market will adjust appropriately the amounts that can be borrowed based on risk.
Requesting 25k and pursuing STEM degree with a 1200 sat and 4.0 - yes we'll loan on that risk.
Requesting 50k for party U into a degree with low average pay and you are a low grade student? - maybe we don't take that risk.
I'm sure there will be unintended consequences, but look at the current set of unintended consequences.
The price and need of higher education would quickly sort itself out.
Doing something like this would pile up discrimination lawsuits real quick.
-
Usually simple solutions are weak thinking but I think this really is a simple problem to solve.
Make student loans bankruptable and comparable to all other loans.
The free market will adjust appropriately the amounts that can be borrowed based on risk.
Requesting 25k and pursuing STEM degree with a 1200 sat and 4.0 - yes we'll loan on that risk.
Requesting 50k for party U into a degree with low average pay and you are a low grade student? - maybe we don't take that risk.
I'm sure there will be unintended consequences, but look at the current set of unintended consequences.
The price and need of higher education would quickly sort itself out.
Doing something like this would pile up discrimination lawsuits real quick.
It would work to reduce costs, but it would functionally abdicate the task of trying to provide opportunity across lines of race, class, and to some extent, gender.
Running a college or university cheaply isn't a mystery. A pre-1975 model of admitting students from middle and upper class families, who are predominantly white, into a sink-or-swim environment with little or no student support and a graduation rate of <50% is indeed cheap to run.
But is a university that is really just sifting the student body for those who came in best prepared (i.e. went to the best schools, which tend to track heavily with parental income) and happen to not run into a major issue along the way (hello, no counseling services or Title IX office) the sort of place that people want to send their kids? Is it the sort of higher ed we want as a society?
-
Additionally - even without government action, this problem *should* sort itself out once those saddled with student loans advise their children on what to do. I doubt they will advocate expensive university and large loans.
To be clear I don't think waiting is the best option, I just wanted to point out that it should eventually sort itself out by the next generation......
The problem sorting itself out in the next generation is my #1 concern. What happens to the whole society when the prevailing wisdom passed on to young people is "Don't go to college, because those people never escape the debt."?
What would be the point of doing well in high school, or learning anything other than a trade?
What happens to a society when the level of education drops by 4 years in just one generation?
What happens when the entire next generation tries to crowd into jobs that don't require a degree? Won't wages go down?
How pissed will people be when the vast majority of the population is stuck earning just above minimum wage while the educated elites take an even large slice of society's production?
How does one find a doctor, a CPA, a lawyer, or an engineer in such a world? Do we start accepting certificates in lieu of degrees?
What happens to culture when 1% of the population has ever read Shakespeare, knows how many Senators there are, or is aware of the Trail of Tears?
What happens to the economy when we have the educational demographics of Mexico?
You can read Shakespeare without going to university. I think we read it in 7th grade English.
Talented students and/or bright poor students get scholarships to uni anyway.
The rest can pay for it and play the market game.
-
Usually simple solutions are weak thinking but I think this really is a simple problem to solve.
Make student loans bankruptable and comparable to all other loans.
The free market will adjust appropriately the amounts that can be borrowed based on risk.
Requesting 25k and pursuing STEM degree with a 1200 sat and 4.0 - yes we'll loan on that risk.
Requesting 50k for party U into a degree with low average pay and you are a low grade student? - maybe we don't take that risk.
I'm sure there will be unintended consequences, but look at the current set of unintended consequences.
The price and need of higher education would quickly sort itself out.
But this really isn't a simple problem to 'solve' (and 'solved' it never will be).
I agree that putting the risk back on the universities is a huge step in the right direction, but as was already pointed out, it would just seriously cull the types of applicants that a university is going to accept. Worse, an unintended consequence of just making loans dischargeable would drive high schools to just spend more time prepping students for the ACT/SAT, and not really creating a balanced and divers curriculum.
But obviously there would be huge opportunities for the higher ed machine to keep the status quo. Why even worry about kids who are 'high risk' because they come from lower quality school districts with families who may not be able to pay.
Universities, just like anyone or anything, would look for any way they possibly could to keep what they've already got. The other solution that would need to accompany your idea would be to cull the degree programs, tenure tracks, athletic programs, and extracurriculars that all add to the cost of higher ed. But what college or university is going to do that? Nah, they'd rather keep the $30k/year sticker to maintain all the extras.
-
But this really isn't a simple problem to 'solve' (and 'solved' it never will be).
True. If it wasn't possible for literally anyone to borrow a five or six-figure sum and go to college, then the problem of millions of people being stifled by student loan debt would simply be replaced by the problem of there being artificial barriers to college and a lack of financial assistance. We "solved" the problem of college elitism/classism only to "create" the problem of out-of-control costs. This was unexpected decades ago, because why would students buy unmarketable degrees en masse, and why would colleges escalate their cost structures to the moon while selling unmarketable degrees en masse?
But obviously there would be huge opportunities for the higher ed machine to keep the status quo. Why even worry about kids who are 'high risk' because they come from lower quality school districts with families who may not be able to pay.
Universities, just like anyone or anything, would look for any way they possibly could to keep what they've already got. The other solution that would need to accompany your idea would be to cull the degree programs, tenure tracks, athletic programs, and extracurriculars that all add to the cost of higher ed. But what college or university is going to do that? Nah, they'd rather keep the $30k/year sticker to maintain all the extras.
The reason universities don't cut the athletics, ancillary programs, student union building, and layers upon layers of administration is because a larger organization justifies higher salaries for executives. I.e. A university administrator can command a higher salary if 1,000 people report to them than if only 100 people report to them. Similarly, a director earns more if 100 people report to them rather than 25.
The best way to advance one's university administration career is to support the addition of every new program or job role that can be thought of. Subsidized loans mean the supply/demand curve is price-insensitive, and higher tuition for out-of-state students creates a disincentive to shop around, so students bear the cost of administrative bloat and high managerial salaries.
To resolve both the accessibility problem and the bureaucratic bloat problem, we'd have to increase demand elasticity by creating incentives for students to go to more efficient colleges (such as loan amounts capped at a lower rate per year). Then, as the most bloated universities add more and more cost, they start to lose revenue, and the system self-limits.
The problem of non-marketable degrees may be resolved when the inter-generational advice shifts from "go to college!" to "major in something where you can get a good-paying job". Gen X and millennials will probably do this with their kids, and the result will be decimation of humanities departments at expensive colleges. However, we could also require universities to provide their students information about the unemployment rate and incomes of graduates in each major before they declare. Even in the information age, this information is hard to find and often does not factor into the decision making process of an 18 year old philosophy, history, PE, or music major.
-
However, we could also require universities to provide their students information about the unemployment rate and incomes of graduates in each major before they declare. Even in the information age, this information is hard to find and often does not factor into the decision making process of an 18 year old philosophy, history, PE, or music major.
FWIW, part of the problem here is FERPA privacy restrictions. This idea was explicitly proposed in a bill called "Know Before You Go" by Ron Wyden of Oregon in both 2015 and 2019. It paired this information gathering with the use of privacy-preserving techniques from cryptography to gather broad statistics without revealing sensitive information about particular students.
-
I just figured out what the above poster did. They added comments in the quotes. They shoulda been bolded or marked somehow.
Sorry, I fixed it.
-
Usually simple solutions are weak thinking but I think this really is a simple problem to solve.
Make student loans bankruptable and comparable to all other loans.
The free market will adjust appropriately the amounts that can be borrowed based on risk.
Requesting 25k and pursuing STEM degree with a 1200 sat and 4.0 - yes we'll loan on that risk.
Requesting 50k for party U into a degree with low average pay and you are a low grade student? - maybe we don't take that risk.
I'm sure there will be unintended consequences, but look at the current set of unintended consequences.
The price and need of higher education would quickly sort itself out.
I suspect this is the answer. College prices didn't start rising faster than inflation until after the government started guaranteeing loans. There is something ironic and frustrating about our government creating a problem so big that only the government can fix it.
-
To the people above stating that risk adjusted loans would further class / race issues.
What about the current system?
Want to borrow more house than you can realistically pay for? DENIED!
Want to borrow money for a ferrarri you cant ever pay for? DENIED!
Why not?:
Want to borrow money for a degree / school that you can never repay and have a high chance of bankrupting on - DENIED
Maybe when someone gets denied out of a useless degree at the most expensive university, they will set their sights on something with a better value proposition. Also the schools would be forced to focus more on demand decent ROI degrees to stay in business.
-
if you make it bankruptable, why would anyone NOT choose that option at 22 y/o and no financial assets? Wouldn't the interest rates be absurd?
-
if you make it bankruptable, why would anyone NOT choose that option at 22 y/o and no financial assets? Wouldn't the interest rates be absurd?
Well under our new system people would be forced to only pursue in demand degrees and be fiscally responsible doing it.
So lets assume our theoretical person has 37k of student loans (current inflated average) and a job as an engineer starting at 62k yearly.
Is it worth the credit ding to bankrupt and have the 7 years associated with that? Additionally if this strategy was a concern, the lenders would probably cap loans at 25k. (Whatever point it isnt worth it for someone to pursue this strategy)
-
But this really isn't a simple problem to 'solve' (and 'solved' it never will be).
I agree that putting the risk back on the universities is a huge step in the right direction, but as was already pointed out, it would just seriously cull the types of applicants that a university is going to accept. Worse, an unintended consequence of just making loans dischargeable would drive high schools to just spend more time prepping students for the ACT/SAT, and not really creating a balanced and divers curriculum.
But obviously there would be huge opportunities for the higher ed machine to keep the status quo. Why even worry about kids who are 'high risk' because they come from lower quality school districts with families who may not be able to pay.
Universities, just like anyone or anything, would look for any way they possibly could to keep what they've already got. The other solution that would need to accompany your idea would be to cull the degree programs, tenure tracks, athletic programs, and extracurriculars that all add to the cost of higher ed. But what college or university is going to do that? Nah, they'd rather keep the $30k/year sticker to maintain all the extras.
I totally agree that it's not a simple problem with a simple answer. I'm also sure universities would rather keep the sticker price the same, but if tax payers stop footing the risk for a $120k degree in tourism they'd have to change their business model or perish. The university I attended managed to provide a high quality undergraduate program for less than $12k a year. A few years after I graduated they were actively looking for ways to spend more money per student to get there cost inline with the other state schools so they could get a larger share of the states lottery scholarship money! That's the kind of perverse thinking the current system is creating and as I was attending from out of state, it would have totally screwed me.
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
Don't say "nobody", as I'd be fine with raising the minimum age for all kinds of things to 25 as well as having separate rules for bankruptcy of debt accrued before age 25. At first people might say "But then lenders won't want to lend to people under 25!" Yes. That is accurate. That's what I consider working as intended.
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
Don't say "nobody", as I'd be fine with raising the minimum age for all kinds of things to 25 as well as having separate rules for bankruptcy of debt accrued before age 25. At first people might say "But then lenders won't want to lend to people under 25!" Yes. That is accurate. That's what I consider working as intended.
+1 million
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
Don't say "nobody", as I'd be fine with raising the minimum age for all kinds of things to 25 as well as having separate rules for bankruptcy of debt accrued before age 25. At first people might say "But then lenders won't want to lend to people under 25!" Yes. That is accurate. That's what I consider working as intended.
+1 million
IDK, back in my grandfather’s generation, it was not uncommon for a male to graduate high school and start a business at 18. Also wasn’t uncommon to have a couple of kids before 20. What changed and extended adolescence to the point where now we’re not sure 25 year olds can understand the implications of debt? These hyper-functional late teenagers of 100 years ago were malnourished and undereducated too.
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
Don't say "nobody", as I'd be fine with raising the minimum age for all kinds of things to 25 as well as having separate rules for bankruptcy of debt accrued before age 25. At first people might say "But then lenders won't want to lend to people under 25!" Yes. That is accurate. That's what I consider working as intended.
Mandatory birth control for both sexes before age 25 would be good too.
-
Age is tricky.
Most people don't have a fully developed frontal cortex until 25. Yet we allow them to have credit, drive, vote, marry, fuck, be tried in court as an adult, and kill for us in wars long before that. Nobody I know wants to push the legal age for these things to 26 though.
Don't say "nobody", as I'd be fine with raising the minimum age for all kinds of things to 25 as well as having separate rules for bankruptcy of debt accrued before age 25. At first people might say "But then lenders won't want to lend to people under 25!" Yes. That is accurate. That's what I consider working as intended.
Mandatory birth control for both sexes before age 25 would be good too.
You could go another route, too. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I'm confused; do none of these "kids" have parents?! I talked to my parents quite a bit about college, before going and during. I even considered going for an expensive degree, and talked to my dad about borrowing for it, and whether the resulting jobs would be adequate for paying it back. That's just common sense!
You invest in an education, is the payoff worth it; yes/no. That's the first question! Even an 18 year old can see that, and if they don't... that's why humans have parents, two even! Why is this so hard? Why is this always discussed as if 18 year old make all their own decision with no support?
(yes I know there are borderline (or overt) scam for-profit colleges, but that's a small part of the problem. Most kids don't go to those. And that's a different issue anyway)
-
I'll be blunt about this.
You tell a 16 or 17 year old: "You must go to college if you want a good job."
Then you tell them: "Borrowing money to invest in your education is a good idea."
You hammer this idea in their impressionable brains for years.
Meanwhile, you haven't imbued them with any responsibility.
I'm confused; do none of these "kids" have parents?! I talked to my parents quite a bit about college, before going and during. I even considered going for an expensive degree, and talked to my dad about borrowing for it, and whether the resulting jobs would be adequate for paying it back. That's just common sense!
You invest in an education, is the payoff worth it; yes/no. That's the first question! Even an 18 year old can see that, and if they don't... that's why humans have parents, two even! Why is this so hard? Why is this always discussed as if 18 year old make all their own decision with no support?
(yes I know there are borderline (or overt) scam for-profit colleges, but that's a small part of the problem. Most kids don't go to those. And that's a different issue anyway)
Look, not all families (nor their dynamics) are created equal. Of course it's necessary for parents to be closely involved in the college conversation, but just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that it happens. Or, that it happens in a productive manner.
When I was in 11th/12th grade, my parents told me I was going to school, more or less chose the school I would end up going to, and told me I must graduate. And then they tossed $25k worth of loans my way, without gathering my input on the matter.
This is probably a little TMI and slightly off topic (even for this veer the discussion has already taken), but my parents also never gave me the sex talk. It's a miracle that I was able to put it all together myself.
My parents are not bad people and I have a great relationship with them, but my experience was by no means an outlier among my social circles in HS and College.
Often what happened to others I knew was that they and their parents were sold on the college narrative and really didn't even consider the costs. Many people who had a similar experience to me were considering undergrad degrees that would have cost well into the six figures, but the mental gymnastics they performed 'justified' the degree because of the institution that was offering it.
But to remove anecdotes from the equation, here's an interesting site with reasonably credible links. I'll unceremoniously cherry pick a couple things - https://financesonline.com/student-loan-statistics/#:~:text=%20Demographics%20of%20Student%20Loan%20Borrowers%20%201,graduates%20owe%20%2425%2C000%20more%20in%20student...%20More%20#:~:text=%20Demographics%20of%20Student%20Loan%20Borrowers%20%201,graduates%20owe%20%2425%2C000%20more%20in%20student...%20More%20 (https://financesonline.com/student-loan-statistics/#:~:text=%20Demographics%20of%20Student%20Loan%20Borrowers%20%201,graduates%20owe%20%2425%2C000%20more%20in%20student...%20More%20#:~:text=%20Demographics%20of%20Student%20Loan%20Borrowers%20%201,graduates%20owe%20%2425%2C000%20more%20in%20student...%20More%20)
On average, African-American college graduates owe $25,000 more in student loan debt than their Caucasian counterparts. (EducationData.org, 2020)
32% of Black and African-American students borrow an average cumulative amount of $25,000 to $39,999 for undergraduate studies. In contrast, 40.6% of White and Caucasian students borrow an average cumulative amount of $0 to $9,999 for undergraduate studies. (EducationData.org, 2020)
21% of young degree holders have families that earn less than $40,000. (Pew Research Center, 2019)
40 % of the highest-income households that earn over $74,000 a year make almost three-quarters of student loan debt payments. (The Brookings Institution, 2020)
On the other hand, 40% of the lowest-income households contribute less than 10% in payments for outstanding student loan debts. (The Brookings Institution, 2020)
57% more women graduate with bachelor’s degrees than men. (Business Insider, 2019)
Women have $2,700 more student loan debt than men. (Business Insider, 2019)
Around 50% of parents of all boys save money for college compared to 39% of parents of all girls. (T. Rowe Price, 2017)
-----
Is it really a big leap to see how the system is flawed? Take your expectation of the 'rational actor' out of the equation, and you can see that for many people, student debt is disproportionately affective.
And taking those people out of the current higher ed (4+ yr degree) system, and it just creates an even worse feedback loop - that white males from middle to upper class families are the only ones who can afford a university education.
-
I'm confused; do none of these "kids" have parents?! I talked to my parents quite a bit about college, before going and during. I even considered going for an expensive degree, and talked to my dad about borrowing for it, and whether the resulting jobs would be adequate for paying it back. That's just common sense!
You invest in an education, is the payoff worth it; yes/no. That's the first question! Even an 18 year old can see that, and if they don't... that's why humans have parents, two even! Why is this so hard? Why is this always discussed as if 18 year old make all their own decision with no support?
I'm reading this as, "why don't kids just have good parents? Then they won't ever make mistakes!"
Let me go back to the parent selection part of my life journey and make sure to pick ones with good financial sense who are willing to be engaged in my life.
I really shouldn't even complain, my parents stayed married and made decent income, so I still won the lottery there (even though we had zero conversations around this topic when I went to college). Even with above average parents I still consider myself incredibly lucky I didn't end up in major student loan debt. It certainly wasn't for any decision making process I did or help from my parents.
Tying $100k of debt to "did you pick the right parents?" feels... well, off.
Not to mention how much worse it often is for first generation college students who have minimal actual guidance from parents on this other than "go to college."
-
I'm confused; do none of these "kids" have parents?! I talked to my parents quite a bit about college, before going and during. I even considered going for an expensive degree, and talked to my dad about borrowing for it, and whether the resulting jobs would be adequate for paying it back. That's just common sense!
You invest in an education, is the payoff worth it; yes/no. That's the first question! Even an 18 year old can see that, and if they don't... that's why humans have parents, two even! Why is this so hard? Why is this always discussed as if 18 year old make all their own decision with no support?
I'm reading this as, "why don't kids just have good parents? Then they won't ever make mistakes!"
Let me go back to the parent selection part of my life journey and make sure to pick ones with good financial sense who are willing to be engaged in my life.
I really shouldn't even complain, my parents stayed married and made decent income, so I still won the lottery there (even though we had zero conversations around this topic when I went to college). Even with above average parents I still consider myself incredibly lucky I didn't end up in major student loan debt. It certainly wasn't for any decision making process I did or help from my parents.
Tying $100k of debt to "did you pick the right parents?" feels... well, off.
Not to mention how much worse it often is for first generation college students who have minimal actual guidance from parents on this other than "go to college."
In my case I was a first-generation college grad, child of an abusive alcoholic single mother. When I turned 18 and had a path out of the torture chamber I grew up in, I signed my name on the dotted line.
Needless to say, I was not prepared for college, and I did not have any financial education. My mother knew nothing about finances and the advice she did give me was egregious. It's a wonder I only came out of it with $140,000 and a bachelor's I don't use.
Your point is well made. Certainly, I had agency, but there's a hierarchy, and my concerns at the time were not about optimizing my monetary situation in the far future.
-
I'm confused; do none of these "kids" have parents?! I talked to my parents quite a bit about college, before going and during. I even considered going for an expensive degree, and talked to my dad about borrowing for it, and whether the resulting jobs would be adequate for paying it back. That's just common sense!
You invest in an education, is the payoff worth it; yes/no. That's the first question! Even an 18 year old can see that, and if they don't... that's why humans have parents, two even! Why is this so hard? Why is this always discussed as if 18 year old make all their own decision with no support?
I'm reading this as, "why don't kids just have good parents? Then they won't ever make mistakes!"
Let me go back to the parent selection part of my life journey and make sure to pick ones with good financial sense who are willing to be engaged in my life.
I really shouldn't even complain, my parents stayed married and made decent income, so I still won the lottery there (even though we had zero conversations around this topic when I went to college). Even with above average parents I still consider myself incredibly lucky I didn't end up in major student loan debt. It certainly wasn't for any decision making process I did or help from my parents.
Tying $100k of debt to "did you pick the right parents?" feels... well, off.
Not to mention how much worse it often is for first generation college students who have minimal actual guidance from parents on this other than "go to college."
But then this logic applies to everything then. Got a car loan you can't afford? Bad parents. Bought a house that's too big? Bad parents. Though not necessarily wrong, at some point shouldn't we instead focus on the core lack of education /guidance issue? Rather than forgive the loans of, not just the people who made poor choices, but every single person with student debt? If it is being talked about better college guidance and prep, I have not heard much about that.
Secondly; I have no doubt some receive poor advice from their parents, but they way it's being told almost every single person with student debt is some poor victim who didn't know better. I refuse to believe there are that many people out there (who managed to get into college!) with awful parets. Kids with the worst parents usually don't get to college at all.
Actually; thirdly. I went to college in a country with "free college", but I still got debt of about $30,000 for living expenses. About the median in the US. I support free public colleges, it's idiotic not to, but it will still cost, there will still be debt.
Rather than forgive outright I think the government should take over the debt and set the interest at the long term treasury rate. Then have a program of forgiveness for needy situations or something.
-
What a lot of people didn’t realize was that for my parents’ generation a college degree (any college degree) set you apart and was a good investment as college back then was pretty dang affordable. So the advice they would likely be giving was “go for it!” because that had been their experience. They didn’t necessarily know that a college degree is worth a lot less now in terms of distinguishing yourself from the pack at the same time the price went up significantly relative to inflation and wages.
What I got from my educated, middle-class parents was that college was good and trying to minimize costs was good. But th et didn’t have much clue about what major to steer us into nor helped us make the connection between major choice and future career earnings. If my college educated parents didn’t do that I am not at all surprised that many others didn’t get the perfect advice necessary to make a complex cost/benefit analysis for the rest of their adult life at age 18.
-
But then this logic applies to everything then. Got a car loan you can't afford? Bad parents. Bought a house that's too big? Bad parents. Though not necessarily wrong, at some point shouldn't we instead focus on the core lack of education /guidance issue? Rather than forgive the loans of, not just the people who made poor choices, but every single person with student debt? If it is being talked about better college guidance and prep, I have not heard much about that.
Fancy new car that you can't afford -> REPO Man
Can't make the payments on the house -> Foreclosure
Got a worthless expensive education -> ???
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
In regards to "bad parents", I wouldn't say most parents are bad, they are just misinformed and/or financially unsophisticated (aka; suckers to be squeezed by the education industrial complex)
-
But then this logic applies to everything then. Got a car loan you can't afford? Bad parents. Bought a house that's too big? Bad parents. Though not necessarily wrong, at some point shouldn't we instead focus on the core lack of education /guidance issue? Rather than forgive the loans of, not just the people who made poor choices, but every single person with student debt? If it is being talked about better college guidance and prep, I have not heard much about that.
Fancy new car that you can't afford -> REPO Man
Can't make the payments on the house -> Foreclosure
Got a worthless expensive education -> ???
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
In regards to "bad parents", I wouldn't say most parents are bad, they are just misinformed and/or financially unsophisticated (aka; suckers to be squeezed by the education industrial complex)
+1
Also, because the first counterargument to the bolded line is going to be "then, those kids should seek alternatives to the standard higher education track", my preemptive response/addendum to your comment is that before anyone just assumes that those kids should seek alternative paths, the reality is that so many jobs today use a 4-yr degree as the minimum requirement. The qualifications and experience come second, and many HR automated screening systems will automatically reject applicants without the relevant degree regardless of what the degree is.
The solution is not to create a self-selecting feedback look that only rewards those who can afford to go to school. Systemic biases against undereducated, lower income, and minority populations are real and forcing the issue to the market is not the solution. But in the context of the thread, neither is SLF in any capacity.
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
I'm now very confused (more so than usual). Guitar, have you heard of any colleges revoking their degrees?
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/2012/05/02/10-high-profile-people-whose-degrees-were-revoked
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/2012/05/02/10-high-profile-people-whose-degrees-were-revoked
Most of these folks lost degrees for fraud, which makes sense. Are there any examples of degrees revoked for nonpayment? I was under the impression that most universities require payment up front each semester, and do not themselves service loans, so it doesn't seem likely to me. If I were a university administrator loan servicing is not a game I would want to get into -- too fraught with conflicts of interest.
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/2012/05/02/10-high-profile-people-whose-degrees-were-revoked
Most of these folks lost degrees for fraud, which makes sense. Are there any examples of degrees revoked for nonpayment? I was under the impression that most universities require payment up front each semester, and do not themselves service loans, so it doesn't seem likely to me. If I were a university administrator loan servicing is not a game I would want to get into -- too fraught with conflicts of interest.
That's all you got? There are millions of new degrees earned every year.
This reminds me of the fake voter fraud scandals.
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/2012/05/02/10-high-profile-people-whose-degrees-were-revoked
Most of these folks lost degrees for fraud, which makes sense. Are there any examples of degrees revoked for nonpayment? I was under the impression that most universities require payment up front each semester, and do not themselves service loans, so it doesn't seem likely to me. If I were a university administrator loan servicing is not a game I would want to get into -- too fraught with conflicts of interest.
That's all you got? There are millions of new degrees earned every year.
This reminds me of the fake voter fraud scandals.
I'm having a hard time parsing this -- are you responding to my post, or to Sugaree?
-
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/2012/05/02/10-high-profile-people-whose-degrees-were-revoked
Most of these folks lost degrees for fraud, which makes sense. Are there any examples of degrees revoked for nonpayment? I was under the impression that most universities require payment up front each semester, and do not themselves service loans, so it doesn't seem likely to me. If I were a university administrator loan servicing is not a game I would want to get into -- too fraught with conflicts of interest.
That's all you got? There are millions of new degrees earned every year.
This reminds me of the fake voter fraud scandals.
I'm having a hard time parsing this -- are you responding to my post, or to Sugaree?
I'm agreeing with you, and I'm just not impressed with Sugaree's "10 revoked high profile degrees in the last 100 years article" [of course, I did ask for it]
-
I'm agreeing with you, and I'm just not impressed with Sugaree's "10 revoked high profile degrees in the last 100 years article" [of course, I did ask for it]
Cheers, thanks for the clarification. It does seem a strange thing to be concerned about.
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
I'm now very confused (more so than usual). Guitar, have you heard of any colleges revoking their degrees?
I didn't say it was currently common . . . just that it seems pretty easy to do if someone really wanted to.
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
I'm now very confused (more so than usual). Guitar, have you heard of any colleges revoking their degrees?
I didn't say it was currently common . . . just that it seems pretty easy to do if someone really wanted to.
I mean, it's an interesting thought experiment but even if one's diploma was revoked, it'd be pretty hard to deny that they completed their course of study.
It's certainly possible, just not practical and honestly I'd take a revoked degree 9/10 times over student loans, especially if it was from some average college or university.
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
I'm now very confused (more so than usual). Guitar, have you heard of any colleges revoking their degrees?
I didn't say it was currently common . . . just that it seems pretty easy to do if someone really wanted to.
I mean, it's an interesting thought experiment but even if one's diploma was revoked, it'd be pretty hard to deny that they completed their course of study.
It's certainly possible, just not practical and honestly I'd take a revoked degree 9/10 times over student loans, especially if it was from some average college or university.
There's nothing that I learned in university that I couldn't have learned on my own with an internet connection. I went for the official piece of paper that employers ask for. If my first employee checked with the university and the university said that they had no records of me . . . I wouldn't have got the job that started my career. A degree was a path to a career for me, a revoked degree would be worthless.
-
There's nothing that I learned in university that I couldn't have learned on my own with an internet connection.
This is unfortunate. It's also probably true for many students. I can say for myself that this was not true -- I don't fancy myself clever enough to have self-studied my way into understanding the math I took in the latter years of university. Access to clear explanations of my mistakes and misconceptions was invaluable.
I went for the official piece of paper that employers ask for. If my first employee checked with the university and the university said that they had no records of me . . . I wouldn't have got the job that started my career. A degree was a path to a career for me, a revoked degree would be worthless.
I (mostly) agree that many hiring managers only care about the degree, not your education. Even so, you get loans from other sources to pay the university. Why would a university administrator care if I refused to pay a private or federal loan? They don't have any skin in the game. The only thing they get from revoking student degrees is bad PR.
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
I'm now very confused (more so than usual). Guitar, have you heard of any colleges revoking their degrees?
I didn't say it was currently common . . . just that it seems pretty easy to do if someone really wanted to.
I mean, it's an interesting thought experiment but even if one's diploma was revoked, it'd be pretty hard to deny that they completed their course of study.
It's certainly possible, just not practical and honestly I'd take a revoked degree 9/10 times over student loans, especially if it was from some average college or university.
There's nothing that I learned in university that I couldn't have learned on my own with an internet connection. I went for the official piece of paper that employers ask for. If my first employee checked with the university and the university said that they had no records of me . . . I wouldn't have got the job that started my career. A degree was a path to a career for me, a revoked degree would be worthless.
I think the days of brick and mortar education may be on decline in the future.
I see rapid programs being developed for in demand skills.
Supply and demand will sort out the pay.
Here's an example of a rapid learning program for the "trades" (seems that word gets looked down upon in this thread sometimes)
https://www.interplaylearning.com/
I've found the sample troubleshooting scenarios to be pretty useful.
-
There's nothing that I learned in university that I couldn't have learned on my own with an internet connection.
This is unfortunate. It's also probably true for many students.
To be fair, I'm a shitty student. My eventual MO was to ditch classes entirely, do exercises at home on my own with the textbook to learn the material and only show up for mid-terms/finals/labs. Some people get stuff out of classes, but I've never been able to sit in a seat and absorb material that someone is talking at me about.
Effectively I was doing distance learning for all my in-classroom stuff. :P
-
My point is that an education can't be taken back once given. That's why the federal government is the guarantor for most loans. If the fed did not guarantee the loans, banks would dish them out at even higher interest rates AND get parental co-signers to compensate for risk. Ultimately, the end result is a lot less capable kids would be able to go to college.
What?
Education can absolutely be taken back once given. A college degree is just that . . . a degree. Nobody gives a shit about how much you know or learned. What matters is that you have a degree to show employers (and sometimes that you're able to produce a transcript . . . usually only important for your first job). All the school needs to do if they don't get paid is say "student Joe Blow? Nah, never heard of him."
Education revoked.
I'm now very confused (more so than usual). Guitar, have you heard of any colleges revoking their degrees?
I didn't say it was currently common . . . just that it seems pretty easy to do if someone really wanted to.
I mean, it's an interesting thought experiment but even if one's diploma was revoked, it'd be pretty hard to deny that they completed their course of study.
It's certainly possible, just not practical and honestly I'd take a revoked degree 9/10 times over student loans, especially if it was from some average college or university.
There's nothing that I learned in university that I couldn't have learned on my own with an internet connection. I went for the official piece of paper that employers ask for. If my first employee checked with the university and the university said that they had no records of me . . . I wouldn't have got the job that started my career. A degree was a path to a career for me, a revoked degree would be worthless.
I think the days of brick and mortar education may be on decline in the future.
I see rapid programs being developed for in demand skills.
Supply and demand will sort out the pay.
Here's an example of a rapid learning program for the "trades" (seems that word gets looked down upon in this thread sometimes)
https://www.interplaylearning.com/
I've found the sample troubleshooting scenarios to be pretty useful.
I don't see any way around it, at least the way universities are progressing towards ridiculous opulence/heavy funding of athletics/etc. I wonder if this is just an American thing. I can't imagine universities in other countries where it's free have an experience or cost that is similar to ours, but I may be wrong.
-
There's nothing that I learned in university that I couldn't have learned on my own with an internet connection.
This is unfortunate. It's also probably true for many students.
To be fair, I'm a shitty student. My eventual MO was to ditch classes entirely, do exercises at home on my own with the textbook to learn the material and only show up for mid-terms/finals/labs. Some people get stuff out of classes, but I've never been able to sit in a seat and absorb material that someone is talking at me about.
Effectively I was doing distance learning for all my in-classroom stuff. :P
Ha, thanks for the laugh. More power to you :P
-
But then this logic applies to everything then. Got a car loan you can't afford? Bad parents. Bought a house that's too big? Bad parents. Though not necessarily wrong, at some point shouldn't we instead focus on the core lack of education /guidance issue? Rather than forgive the loans of, not just the people who made poor choices, but every single person with student debt? If it is being talked about better college guidance and prep, I have not heard much about that.
Secondly; I have no doubt some receive poor advice from their parents, but they way it's being told almost every single person with student debt is some poor victim who didn't know better. I refuse to believe there are that many people out there (who managed to get into college!) with awful parets. Kids with the worst parents usually don't get to college at all.
Actually; thirdly. I went to college in a country with "free college", but I still got debt of about $30,000 for living expenses. About the median in the US. I support free public colleges, it's idiotic not to, but it will still cost, there will still be debt.
Rather than forgive outright I think the government should take over the debt and set the interest at the long term treasury rate. Then have a program of forgiveness for needy situations or something.
How many 17 year olds can buy cars/houses? There's a reason no bank will loan a 17 year old $40k for a car. Or $200k for a house.
If the government was guaranteeing car loans you better believe that 17 year olds would be approved for as much money as the gov would ensure.
A major problem with student loans is the government has absolutely sponsored, subsidized, and guaranteed the madness that is student loans. I've said numerous times in this thread that I don't support forgiveness without a plan to change this. But acting as if car/houses are in the same situation is.. really missing context.
-
But then this logic applies to everything then. Got a car loan you can't afford? Bad parents. Bought a house that's too big? Bad parents. Though not necessarily wrong, at some point shouldn't we instead focus on the core lack of education /guidance issue? Rather than forgive the loans of, not just the people who made poor choices, but every single person with student debt? If it is being talked about better college guidance and prep, I have not heard much about that.
Secondly; I have no doubt some receive poor advice from their parents, but they way it's being told almost every single person with student debt is some poor victim who didn't know better. I refuse to believe there are that many people out there (who managed to get into college!) with awful parets. Kids with the worst parents usually don't get to college at all.
Actually; thirdly. I went to college in a country with "free college", but I still got debt of about $30,000 for living expenses. About the median in the US. I support free public colleges, it's idiotic not to, but it will still cost, there will still be debt.
Rather than forgive outright I think the government should take over the debt and set the interest at the long term treasury rate. Then have a program of forgiveness for needy situations or something.
How many 17 year olds can buy cars/houses? There's a reason no bank will loan a 17 year old $40k for a car. Or $200k for a house.
If the government was guaranteeing car loans you better believe that 17 year olds would be approved for as much money as the gov would ensure.
A major problem with student loans is the government has absolutely sponsored, subsidized, and guaranteed the madness that is student loans. I've said numerous times in this thread that I don't support forgiveness without a plan to change this. But acting as if car/houses are in the same situation is.. really missing context.
I agree this is a big part of the issue. Not to be flippant, but it also appeals to my roots of "the government generally screws things up" that I'm not nearly as intense about as I was but that I still believe has some truth in it.
The government steps in to fix a perceived problem - more people need to go to college. They help propel forward this tide of not only college debt but rampant and excessive degree requirements for jobs. Then people seemingly blithely say, no problem, let's just let the government forgive student loans as if it's the same magic bullet as people thought when they said, let's let the government back student loans. Through helping to give money to tons of people who should have had more sense than to take loans to begin with, they've helped move universities down a path that has allowed catastrophic changes to the universities now flush with government-backed cash - changes that, IMO, may not be recoverable from. Solution - more government magic pills - let's do this. Maybe once we get this "fixed," the government can help create more problems that they can magically fix by throwing trillions of dollars at them as well. It's laughable.
-
The fact is that there are only so many jobs that require degrees and pumping out more college graduates doesn't change this equation.
-
The fact is that there are only so many jobs that require degrees and pumping out more college graduates doesn't change this equation.
Jobs requiring post secondary education have increased over time. Last that I read, 35% of jobs require a degree, 30% require some post secondary education, and 30% require high school or less. (https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/recovery-job-growth-and-education-requirements-through-2020/#:~:text=By%20educational%20attainment%3A%2035%20percent,require%20education%20beyond%20high%20school. (https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/recovery-job-growth-and-education-requirements-through-2020/#:~:text=By%20educational%20attainment%3A%2035%20percent,require%20education%20beyond%20high%20school.), https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/the-edge/2020-01-22 (https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/the-edge/2020-01-22)). This number has been steadily increasing over time.
-
That's because degrees are getting watered down. Now any idiot with terrible scores can do a degree. So a basic degree is the new high school diploma.
-
That's because degrees are getting watered down. Now any idiot with terrible scores can do a degree. So a basic degree is the new high school diploma.
But there's no going back on that, from a practical standpoint.
I've watched as positions within my company that, 7 years ago listed an associate's/technical certification as the minimum education expectation are now listing a bachelor's as the minimum for otherwise the same position with the same relative job requirements.
Many automated HR screening systems also are looking for minimum qualifications as a 4yr degree even if the position could accommodate someone with less education.
Higher education isn't a predictor of success, but it's being used increasingly as the minimum for entry into a lot of positions.
-
I have to imagine the auto screening systems would be calibrated to match supply, should the supply of 4 year educated candidates dry up.
If the company pays enough to demand a 4 year then so be it. Alot of companies don't if we're being honest.
-
That's because degrees are getting watered down. Now any idiot with terrible scores can do a degree. So a basic degree is the new high school diploma.
If you look back to the pre-WWII universities of the US and Europe (no idea about Australia), they were basically finishing schools/playpens for the sons of rich families. Lots of students left after a year or two to rejoin the family business because the degree itself wasn't very important as their working life was hereditarily secured. They'd made their connections and fledged a bit, which was the point.
It's only since the Second World War as universities have become a rung in a meritocratic hierarchy that there's been some widespread idea that universities and courses of study ought to treat rigor as an inherent good. That pretense to rigor has been consistently undercut by the desire of students for high grades and the desire of institutions and their accreditors for high completion rates. Insofar as a rigorous college experience has been a goal at all, it's mostly been a curated mirage. People were mostly fine with the fiction as long as white males were the primary beneficiaries.
-
That's because degrees are getting watered down. Now any idiot with terrible scores can do a degree. So a basic degree is the new high school diploma.
But there's no going back on that, from a practical standpoint.
I've watched as positions within my company that, 7 years ago listed an associate's/technical certification as the minimum education expectation are now listing a bachelor's as the minimum for otherwise the same position with the same relative job requirements.
Many automated HR screening systems also are looking for minimum qualifications as a 4yr degree even if the position could accommodate someone with less education.
Higher education isn't a predictor of success, but it's being used increasingly as the minimum for entry into a lot of positions.
Higher education performance correlates with job performance.
It used to be only a few people got into degrees. Now everyone can find a degree at Podunk College - so because of grade inflation and degree inflation, employers require more. That's perfectly rational.
It's a 'race to the top' and it's the fault of students for being dumb enough to suck up the propaganda of colleges. This isn't to say that a college degree isn't worthwhile - but a lot of them are worthless because they are offered to students who don't have what it takes to go to college. These students get sucked into the hype.
But you can't have it both ways. If we arbitrarily said no one with a SAT score of less than 600/600 could get into college people would whinge that they're not getting a chance. So you let everyone get into college then people whinge that they got an uncompetitive degree. They'll never be happy, but that's how meritocracy works.
-
It used to be only a few people got into degrees. Now everyone can find a degree at Podunk College - so because of grade inflation and degree inflation, employers require more. That's perfectly rational.
How can people see the above as perfectly rational and yet can't see that increasing minimum wage just causes wage inflation and price inflation of goods?
-
In a perfectly efficient market that's what increasing min wage would do. In the real world it causes some inflation and some real gains on the low end.
-
I have to imagine the auto screening systems would be calibrated to match supply, should the supply of 4 year educated candidates dry up.
If the company pays enough to demand a 4 year then so be it. Alot of companies don't if we're being honest.
Great point. There will be an adjustment to any situation, but where we're heading as a country in regards to education after high school is untenable, so people shouldn't act as if an adjustment isn't happening one way or the other. Why not have an adjustment make sense? Reduce rampant and unnecessary 4-year degrees and company's hiring processes will eventually reflect it. Careers that pay enough to afford a degree will pay enough to afford a degree. Otherwise, companies will need to buckle down and improve their screening and interview processes.
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-bill-would-clear-hurdle-for-student-debt-forgiveness-11614974747 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-bill-would-clear-hurdle-for-student-debt-forgiveness-11614974747)
A provision in the Senate bill just passed does away with tax consequences for student loan forgiveness through 2025. This would be huge if Biden ends up forgiving student loan debt.
-
Turns out @GuitarStv was right. MA public colleges withholding transcripts for nonpayment of fees.
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/03/22/massachusetts-public-colleges-are-withholding-transcripts-and-degrees-from-thousands-over-unpaid-bills
-
Sounds fair to me.
-
Sounds fair to me.
Fair or not it seems like it runs counter to the universities’ interests, which is what I argued above (clearly in error). Seems like if you want people who can’t afford to pay off $1-2k in bills to do so, you would want them to be able to use the credentials they studied for to get a better job. I also find it strange that people in this situation can’t get public or private loans to discharge the balance and access the transcripts.