We’re largely talking about 18, 19, 20 year old kids. They might know it’s big numbers but we’re talking about people who just became adults. They aren’t really truly thinking about the numbers and as you’ve said the cost increases have been staggering. We can’t really compare the “deal” someone got in 1988 to the deal someone got in 2018. Not when college tuitions are outpacing wages in such a dramatic fashion.
I think it’s pretty similar. You’re saying that these kids should anticipate the potential issues with this type of agreement. Which isn’t totally wrong. But the people in Texas should have also anticipated the potential issues with their agreement. Or (IMO) that practice shouldn’t even have been allowed. And I think these people in Texas absolutely should get relief.
Agreed with this. At the same time what we’ve often seen with long means testing in other areas at times is that the costs are even higher than the “benefits” of a blanket move. So we spend five years studying who deserves what and that itself takes money. It’s like drug testing for programs. Yeah you catch some scammers which is good but you pay a bunch of money to catch the few. In the end you’re spending more. Which could be worth it to some but isn’t if the idea is to save tax dollars.
It’s like initial Covid relief bills when Trump sent out checks. If you think checks are needed now spending a bunch of time trying to figure out exactly who needs what and how much isn’t just time consuming but potentially more costly.
Agreed. It should be part of a discussion into looking how to fix the root problem. But ultimately if we say all these people are saddled with huge debt and some relief will help then some relief will help. I’m not sure how long we should wait to do this if people think it will be beneficial. Do we say it’s an issue now but try to spend the next 15 years fixing costs and then forgive some loans?
I could write a ton (and maybe will sometime soon) on my thoughts on making some changes to higher education. My quick thoughts though were just that I always see the “that’s not fair” argument come out with this. Which sure it isn’t fair but a lot of stuff we do isn’t. Also we tend to help people even if we can easily say they should have known.
I’m not even 100% sure I’m for big amounts to be paid off. But I think dismissing it because of fairness or saying everyone should have known better isn’t the only way to look at the problem.
This is bullshit. We already give lots of money to programs in the inner cities. We spend more money per pupil in inner city schools than suburban schools. Biden’s answer shows just how out of touch these older politicians are with the reality most Americans live in.
This isn’t a poor people issue but a working and middle class issue. Poor people can get into college and pay for it with loans, grants, scholarships, etc., just like everyone else. The issue poor people face is the getting into college part as they don’t do as well on tests and everyone knows that inner city schools inflate grades more than other schools. And, if an inner city kid does get into college there is a good chance he won’t be academically prepared to succeed and end up failing or just feeling overwhelmed and dropping out. I have personally seen inner city college freshmen stop going to class once they got their financial aid money. They don’t finish one year of college, let alone graduate, and really don’t care about the debt they have. In other words, the obstacle facing a poor kid is not financial; he can pay for college the same way most everyone else does.
The issue is that working class and middle class families cannot afford college without taking out loans. So this idea that Biden wants to give (more) money to the poor (which translates to inner city/minorities) is just another move to screw over the middle class. But this is a problem with these types of white people; they think all white people are like them and all black people are living in the ghetto.
It’s not that poor (black) people cannot afford college but that people who are not poor cannot afford college. If you give poor people a free ride, sure, it’s so very nice but what about those who are not poor but still cannot afford college without loans? And these people are the majority of college students. You’ll end up with a few poor people going to college and graduating debt free but the majority of college grads will still be graduating with debt. I suppose that’s one way to solve the equality vs equity equation… until you realize that this won’t even help black people as most are not living in poverty and are among the middle and working class people who need to go into debt to go to college.
If you read what I wrote, you’ll note that I’m being critical of Biden and not you. In other words, I’m not commenting on what YOU said but what BIDEN said.
I still have about 90K in student loans. I don’t think that my friends who never went to college (farmers, truck drivers, trades people) should have to help me pay them off. I made choices, I reaped the benefits, I should be responsible for my actions. I do think that the fact that government backed loans exist drives up the price of college. I mean if there is more money to be had, of course they are going to take it.
Everything you said is what I was thinking when I said not fair. But I didn’t spell it out because that is a whole different argument that will end up in a racial equality discussion.
This is a issue for sure. I like Z’s recommendation earlier of making the loans more like any other loan that could be defaulted on. I think if they can be defaulted on, then the loan holders are going to make sure one is able to pay it back.
Do non college educated folks benefit from having college educated peers? Does the overall economy improve (benefit for all) from having less people in debt?
IMO, we shouldn’t just single out college debt holders (I think other things should qualify like medical debt). I have a proposal in post 24 in which I think much of the fairness aspect is addressed.
At least this would be going to many people who could use the help. I’d way rather my tax dollars went to this than military waste, corporations, or Trump charging the secret service extra money because he wants to stay in Mar a Lago.
This is a terribly weak argument. No, my farmer friends do not benefit from someone having a women’s studies or French poetry degree. The college educated people who do benefit society are already rewarded with higher salaries. Do higher taxes to pay for women’s studies degrees counter any benefit that could come from the reduced debt?
They benefit greatly from the college educated guy who comes up with a new more efficient variant of their crop. You picked the least useful degrees as your counter. Plenty of people study useful things.
There are also less obvious benefits to having an educated society and one in which people are not in debt. Things like the economic growth that these people provide. They generally consume more if they don’t have debt. That helps the non educated restaurant server for example.
Here’s the thing, you didn’t really have a choice. You wanted to go to college (and young people are encouraged and even pushed to go to college) and maybe you even needed to go to college for what you wanted to do for a career. This is how they have young people by the balls. They have something you need and know you will go into to debt to pay for it.
Do colleges not already get government funds? Clearly the government sees value in subsidizing these institutions (both public and private).
State and community colleges sure do. Maybe the colleges (at least public ones) just need to have a max price they can charge, and the government has a fixed subsidy. They then would cut the BS out to make it work. My college had 3 separate climbing walls. I like climbing, but that just isn’t necessary.
Maybe they would. Why should we assume working class people can’t appreciate things like poetry? That’s elitism.
The funny thing is, many of these so called useless degrees are in subjects that form the very foundation of civilized society. And I would argue that people would be better off had they been taught philosophy in high school, for example. Our society’s decline is coinciding with a diminished interest in the humanities as part of our lives. Just look at what high school students are reading today vs 30 years ago. We put a high price on getting an education but little value on being educated.
Completely agree. I am not saying those don’t have value. They are harder for many people to see the value in though. It is easier to convince someone that funding STEM makes sense.
And he is paid by the company he works for. Joe the plumber doesn’t need to pay for his education.
Are you going to exempt paying loans for stupid degrees? Or even limits for useful ones? There are school teachers who take out loans to go to Harvard. Should the parents of the poor, underprivledged student in their class pay for that education? And who gets to decide what degrees are “useful”? What if I get a degree in a “useful” subject but decide to go into a different field? Do I still get my loans repaid?
I absolutely had a choice. I could have worked and saved up. I could have gone to cheaper schools. I could have chosen a different field. No one forced me to take out my loans.