How would they help pay them off?
People on here DO NOT understand economics on the Federal level. All I see are just a conglomerate of gold-standard fools. People who take the “How ya gonna pay for it” question seriously.
Yet you offer nothing to educate? Why should any of these so called fools assume you know more than they do it all you’ll do is insult but fail to offer up any of that implied superior knowledge?
… And they’re the fools …
You don’t remember zep?
C’mon man … anyone who’s been here longer than a year remembers Zep - poor guy
I just assumed you didn’t, since you wasted your time responding to him.
I have two degrees that I took loans out for. I finished paying them both off, by myself. When you take out a loan of any kind you are committing to paying it. Having the government borrow money from China to do it for you is not the correct answer.
2 Likes
What advantages do an FJG have over a UBI?
My concerns with an FJG are-
Jobs are not distributed evenly across the country. I believe we already have a situation where some places have very little jobs while other places do have jobs and people are either unwilling to relocate or are unaware of these opportunities. Therefore, an FJG needs to take this into account and make sure there’s enough jobs spread across all regions at all times. This… seems immensely difficult to keep track of.
I think it’s difficult to assume that people will be willing to take a job simply because there’s an opening for it. My go-to example of this will always be the farmers in CA who use illegal immigrants for labor because other people are unwilling to do the work. There are evidence saying that illegal immigrants in the U.S. are mostly doing the work that people are unwilling to do anyhow. Therefore, I think we can assume jobs created by a FJG needs to be the kind that people are willing to do, and I’m not sure if that’s possible because people are people.
Lastly- there are some people who just don’t like to work. An FJG will not help them.
The government already pays for K-12. What is the justification for stopping at grade 12? It seems we have decided that it is an investment to educate our population up until that point. Is that the correct point? Many 1st world countries think the point is higher.
At a certain point (it seems in the US it is grade 12) that the logic switches from an investment to a tax payer hand out. I don’t think that is justified. It seems as though grade 12 was sufficient on average decades ago. I am not convinced our best economic outcome occurs if we stop funding for education at the 12th grade. I consider college loan repayment as funding for education (retroactively).
[quote=“H_factor, post:41, topic:272492, full:true”]
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.[/quote]
You’re right. The typical expectation here is that the parents or some advisor (be it financial, teacher, etc) will guide them but I realize that this is actually not practical. It would be more honest for the lenders to say “Sorry, but this seems like a bad deal for me,” and refuse to lend. But this then, of course, opens another whole can of worms.
[quote=“H_factor, post:41, topic:272492, full:true”]
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. [/quote]
I didn’t fully understand the electric bill situations in Texas when I wrote this. Having educated myself a little more, I understand why you’re arguing this and now agree that it’s similar.
Texans pride themselves on their independence, yes? If so… you get what you ask for =D And I assume most of these people weren’t young adults either.
What is the goal of the student loan repayment? Perhaps I need to educate myself on what Democrats wanted out of this because I didn’t really do that. I thought I understood why many years ago, back when people talked about the student loan crisis, but now it seems that people have moved past the “why” and are simply talking about getting it done asap.
If the goal is to help people get out of financial holes then, again, why not just forgive all debt?
If the goal is to uplift poor people/minorities, then a blanket student loan repayment doesn’t really make sense because, from what I understand, the vast majority of people who are saddled with these loans are actually lower-middle or middle class people. And in this case a targeted system seems possible- give student loan repayment to racial minorities and/or people who made less than 30k (or some other arbitrary number to target low income) in a year.
Wasn’t it because people didn’t assume 3-4 decades ago that you needed a college education in order to get a job?
Was it people assuming that, or was that the case?
Is that the case now? Could we just have the people desiring a high income enter the trades? Is there concern for saturation?
I just think some wiggle room should exist between “well I guess we should just pay everyone’s electric bills for all time vs. “well fuck the people who signed up for that they should have known better.”
It seems to me in a lot of these scenarios and discussions people tend to try and hone in on something a bit extreme. And I think that’s not how we should actually look at things when thinking about making policy. A WORLD of difference exists in the margin between the often extreme discussion points of all or nothing.
1 Like
Would you fund any and all majors?
Buying votes of the dumb and lazy.
1 Like
It’s not for his benefit I responded
High school education is the minimum level of education for the general populace in the entire 1st world. Everything above that is by choice. Certain professions require higher education but no individual requires higher education. Its been a standard lie that most everyone needs a college education and all its resulted in is people going to college because they think they are supposed to and getting degrees they cannot find a position for, owing for loans they that will take them a lifetime to repay, while lots of the nation is suffering underemployment in blue collar positions.
1 Like
People can’t drop out before getting a diploma?
The individuals in those professions do.
Why do they think that?
Maybe they should pay more.
According to who? You’re acting like this is a universal truth that is and always should remain the same.
12th grade is an arbitrary number. It was very uncommon for a long time for people to move past grades much lower than that. Nothing at all says we should make sure we educate as a society until then and only then.
It’s not like the entire country falls apart and we are doomed forever if we don’t hit it or stop at that number.
My guess is you really haven’t looked much at all into what Norway, Finland, Sweden, etc do differently than us for post-secondary success. Not saying what we do is wrong or what they do is right merely acting as if the 1st world all does the same thing isn’t remotely true.
This is bizarre. Of course no individual requires it. I mean it’s not food or water. I’m also guessing you don’t want to live in a society where a lot of individuals don’t pursue higher education. The very site you’re using is built on a lot of people with higher education.