Just cancel student debt already

[NewOrleans]

That’s it. That’s the post.

[lilypad1126]

Yes, please. What they are doing now is super confusing and annoying. And excessively difficult. 

[bee20]

It doesn't solve the problem and creates a lot of new ones (one of many sources). My biggest gripe is it is a one-time boost for a narrow range of people that doesn't even try to address the systemic issues with post-secondary education funding and income inequality. 

[NewOrleans]

Dec 22, 2021 19:00:49 GMT -5 bee20 said:

It doesn't solve the problem and creates a lot of new ones (one of many sources). My biggest gripe is it is a one-time boost for a narrow range of people that doesn't even try to address the systemic issues with post-secondary education funding and income inequality. 

The article proposes canceling mortgage debt instead. Given that Black home ownership is at its lowest rate in decades, I’m not picking up what this article is putting down that that is somehow more equitable or racially and socially just.

LOL at the “it’s not fair” section.  I can’t get it up for the righteous regard for those sacrificing, fiscally responsible Boomers it references.

[bee20]

Dec 22, 2021 19:20:12 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Dec 22, 2021 19:00:49 GMT -5 bee20 said:

It doesn't solve the problem and creates a lot of new ones (one of many sources). My biggest gripe is it is a one-time boost for a narrow range of people that doesn't even try to address the systemic issues with post-secondary education funding and income inequality. 

The article proposes canceling mortgage debt instead. Given that Black home ownership is at its lowest rate in decades, I’m not picking up what this article is putting down that that is somehow more equitable or racially and socially just.

LOL at the “it’s not fair” section.  I can’t get it up for the righteous regard for those sacrificing, fiscally responsible Boomers it references.

I wouldn't cancel mortgage debt either.  Were I dictator I'd spend my money on universal free healthcare or making the child credit permanent (even though I don't have kids and can't physically). But that misses the point.

We have paused student loan repayments during the pandemic, saving people thousands of dollars on their student loans. That's enough without addressing the larger issue of higher education affordability, unequal access to secondary education, and the resulting income inequality. I'd support a broad bill that would pay for community college for all.  I'm fine with PSLF since we're essentially giving a grant to underpaid professions even though I would probably set the details a little differently.  But again, universally cancelling student (or mortgage) debt is a one-time boost that benefits a narrow range of people and doesn't address the systemic issue. 

[redheadbaker]

Dec 22, 2021 19:35:37 GMT -5 bee20 said:

Dec 22, 2021 19:20:12 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

The article proposes canceling mortgage debt instead. Given that Black home ownership is at its lowest rate in decades, I’m not picking up what this article is putting down that that is somehow more equitable or racially and socially just.

LOL at the “it’s not fair” section.  I can’t get it up for the righteous regard for those sacrificing, fiscally responsible Boomers it references.

I wouldn't cancel mortgage debt either.  Were I dictator I'd spend my money on universal free healthcare or making the child credit permanent (even though I don't have kids and can't physically). But that misses the point.

We have paused student loan repayments during the pandemic, saving people thousands of dollars on their student loans. That's enough without addressing the larger issue of higher education affordability, unequal access to secondary education, and the resulting income inequality. I'd support a broad bill that would pay for community college for all.  I'm fine with PSLF since we're essentially giving a grant to underpaid professions even though I would probably set the details a little differently.  But again, universally cancelling student (or mortgage) debt is a one-time boost that benefits a narrow range of people and doesn't address the systemic issue. 

Why can’t we cancel debt AND address the systemic issues? It’s not either/or.

[NewOrleans]

Dec 22, 2021 19:35:37 GMT -5 bee20 said:

Dec 22, 2021 19:20:12 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

The article proposes canceling mortgage debt instead. Given that Black home ownership is at its lowest rate in decades, I’m not picking up what this article is putting down that that is somehow more equitable or racially and socially just.

LOL at the “it’s not fair” section.  I can’t get it up for the righteous regard for those sacrificing, fiscally responsible Boomers it references.

I wouldn't cancel mortgage debt either.  Were I dictator I'd spend my money on universal free healthcare or making the child credit permanent (even though I don't have kids and can't physically). But that misses the point.

We have paused student loan repayments during the pandemic, saving people thousands of dollars on their student loans. That's enough without addressing the larger issue of higher education affordability, unequal access to secondary education, and the resulting income inequality. I'd support a broad bill that would pay for community college for all.  I'm fine with PSLF since we're essentially giving a grant to underpaid professions even though I would probably set the details a little differently.  But again, universally cancelling student (or mortgage) debt is a one-time boost that benefits a narrow range of people and doesn't address the systemic issue. 

PSLF benefits mostly white people.  How does *that* address the very systemic problems you’re concerned about or improve upon “fairness” in cancelling student loan debt or broaden the range of people benefitting?

[lilypad1126]

Maybe because I’m affected by student loans, I feel differently about it, but I just can’t get upset at the thought that we just cancel it. Certainly PSLF needs overhauling, and they are making strides towards that. But also, I think there are plenty of people who don’t qualify because at 18 they got bad advice to take out private loans and go to an expensive school. Or got bad advice and consolidated federal loans to private bc their debt was so burdensome that they thought the lower interest rate was worth it. Or because they don’t work for a qualifying employer, but still make a pitiful wage because wages haven’t kept up with either inflation or the rising cost of tuition.

And, speaking of PSLF, it’s a pretty privileged program. If you don’t have easy access to the internet, a computer, a printer, a smart phone, etc etc etc, you are going to struggle with it. I have access to all that, and it’s still awful and difficult and annoying and it feels impossible. I regularly hear of people who spend HOURS on the phone only to get hung up, given wrong info, etc.

And I think ALL OF THAT can happen while we address the systemic issues of higher education and rising tuition and how we can fund higher education in a way that makes it affordable for all.

[bee20]

Dec 22, 2021 20:06:27 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Dec 22, 2021 19:35:37 GMT -5 bee20 said:

I wouldn't cancel mortgage debt either.  Were I dictator I'd spend my money on universal free healthcare or making the child credit permanent (even though I don't have kids and can't physically). But that misses the point.

We have paused student loan repayments during the pandemic, saving people thousands of dollars on their student loans. That's enough without addressing the larger issue of higher education affordability, unequal access to secondary education, and the resulting income inequality. I'd support a broad bill that would pay for community college for all.  I'm fine with PSLF since we're essentially giving a grant to underpaid professions even though I would probably set the details a little differently.  But again, universally cancelling student (or mortgage) debt is a one-time boost that benefits a narrow range of people and doesn't address the systemic issue. 

PSLF benefits mostly white people.  How does *that* address the very systemic problems you’re concerned about or improve upon “fairness” in cancelling student loan debt or broaden the range of people benefitting?

PSLF subsidizes wages at nonprofits that directly serve a variety of people, and is a continuing program. 

Benefit of student debt cancellation beyond the debtors is debatable, and is one-time. 

[docholly]

I think the “it’s not fair” argument can be addressed by determining how it benefits the country as a whole to cancel student loan debt. What would the impact be to income equality and the economy? While nothing is going to be beneficial for every single individual would we see a tangible, collective benefit? Borrowers and non-borrowers? I have only skimmed that information and need to learn more.

I don’t qualify for PSLF (I don’t think?) because I am an adjunct. Two of the schools I work for are public but I am not full time. I have put in the overall time but the rules don’t apply for my situation.

I think my salary qualifies as pitiful. lol…

[NewOrleans]

Dec 22, 2021 20:45:13 GMT -5 bee20 said:

Dec 22, 2021 20:06:27 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

PSLF benefits mostly white people.  How does *that* address the very systemic problems you’re concerned about or improve upon “fairness” in cancelling student loan debt or broaden the range of people benefitting?

PSLF subsidizes wages at nonprofits that directly serve a variety of people, and is a continuing program. 

Now I know you’re just funning with us.

[gretchenindisguise]

Dec 22, 2021 20:59:06 GMT -5 docholly said:

I think the “it’s not fair” argument can be addressed by determining how it benefits the country as a whole to cancel student loan debt. What would the impact be to income equality and the economy? While nothing is going to be beneficial for every single individual would we see a tangible, collective benefit? Borrowers and non-borrowers? I have only skimmed that information and need to learn more.

I don’t qualify for PSLF (I don’t think?) because I am an adjunct. Two of the schools I work for are public but I am not full time. I have put in the overall time but the rules don’t apply for my situation.

I think my salary qualifies as pitiful. lol…

If you've worked at two qualifying schools at the same time for a combined total of over 30 hours per week - you can qualify.

[okla]

Dec 22, 2021 21:07:21 GMT -5 gretchenindisguise said:

Dec 22, 2021 20:59:06 GMT -5 docholly said:

I think the “it’s not fair” argument can be addressed by determining how it benefits the country as a whole to cancel student loan debt. What would the impact be to income equality and the economy? While nothing is going to be beneficial for every single individual would we see a tangible, collective benefit? Borrowers and non-borrowers? I have only skimmed that information and need to learn more.

I don’t qualify for PSLF (I don’t think?) because I am an adjunct. Two of the schools I work for are public but I am not full time. I have put in the overall time but the rules don’t apply for my situation.

I think my salary qualifies as pitiful. lol…

If you've worked at two qualifying schools at the same time for a combined total of over 30 hours per week - you can qualify.

And private schools count as long as they are non-profit.

[docholly]

Dec 22, 2021 21:18:25 GMT -5 okla said:

Dec 22, 2021 21:07:21 GMT -5 gretchenindisguise said:

If you've worked at two qualifying schools at the same time for a combined total of over 30 hours per week - you can qualify.

And private schools count as long as they are non-profit.

Thanks!

Does it have to be the same schools the entire time?

[bee20]

Dec 22, 2021 21:04:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Dec 22, 2021 20:45:13 GMT -5 bee20 said:

PSLF subsidizes wages at nonprofits that directly serve a variety of people, and is a continuing program. 

Now I know you’re just funning with us.

It's certainly not an academic debate.  If we want to go there I think this article better sums up my position: Brookings.  My first link was the first hit on google for downsides of student debt cancellation because I was replying to the light holiday dinner tone of the thread.

I'm not anti-loan reform, but it bothers me when the narrative is "loans suck, let's cancel them".

My half-baked idea is to limit student loan interest to no more than what federal treasury bonds are paying.  My student loans were at 6.8% while bonds were at 2-3%.  Student loans are federally guaranteed debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so why do loan servicers get to make higher profits with no risk?  

[wanderingback]

Dec 22, 2021 21:29:58 GMT -5 docholly said:

Dec 22, 2021 21:18:25 GMT -5 okla said:

And private schools count as long as they are non-profit.

Thanks!

Does it have to be the same schools the entire time?

You could have 75 different jobs. They just have to all qualify as counting towards pslf and add up to a combined average 30 hours per week.

[NewOrleans]

Dec 22, 2021 21:35:40 GMT -5 bee20 said:

Dec 22, 2021 21:04:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Now I know you’re just funning with us.

It's certainly not an academic debate.  If we want to go there I think this article better sums up my position: Brookings.  My first link was the first hit on google for downsides of student debt cancellation because I was replying to the light holiday dinner tone of the thread.

I'm not anti-loan reform, but it bothers me when the narrative is "loans suck, let's cancel them".

My half-baked idea is to limit student loan interest to no more than what federal treasury bonds are paying.  My student loans were at 6.8% while bonds were at 2-3%.  Student loans are federally guaranteed debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so why do loan servicers get to make higher profits with no risk?  

You hold up non profit work as more “worthy” to subsidize than student loan forgiveness.  Non profits are cesspools and purveyors of institutional racism. They theoretically exist to further progress but in actuality operate in paternalistic, exclusionary, and trauma-inducing ways rather than abolitionist mutual aid. Unequal access to higher education— your main concern, as I understand it— is a direct result (and design) of the entire educational system, is it not?

 I don’t care that you don’t believe in college debt cancellation; I care that people’s main argument is how it mostly benefits white people—as if Black college debt isn’t its own crisis (a topic which Brookings has explored and advocated for full loan forgiveness more recently than the given article). I wouldn’t even be arguing with you if your first article hadn’t been based on a racist and meritocratic premise even as it argued that student loan cancellation perpetuates race-based income.  

“Risk” is the language of capitalism.  If you want lenders to assume more risk, have more skin in the game, and also turn any profit, as your last statement indicates, you entrench capitalism further which stunts your progressive goals. This is in no means an indictment of you, just the tension inherent in what you propose.  The Brookings article provided proposes no real change at all.  Income-based repayment?  What is revolutionary or even remotely different from the status quo about that?  Is that eliminating systemic inequalities? Would white people not be the primary beneficiaries of that?  

My actual position is not reducible to “student loans suck; ergo, cancel.” 

[msmerymac]

Dec 22, 2021 19:35:37 GMT -5 bee20 said:

Dec 22, 2021 19:20:12 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

The article proposes canceling mortgage debt instead. Given that Black home ownership is at its lowest rate in decades, I’m not picking up what this article is putting down that that is somehow more equitable or racially and socially just.

LOL at the “it’s not fair” section.  I can’t get it up for the righteous regard for those sacrificing, fiscally responsible Boomers it references.

I wouldn't cancel mortgage debt either.  Were I dictator I'd spend my money on universal free healthcare or making the child credit permanent (even though I don't have kids and can't physically). But that misses the point.

We have paused student loan repayments during the pandemic, saving people thousands of dollars on their student loans. That's enough without addressing the larger issue of higher education affordability, unequal access to secondary education, and the resulting income inequality. I'd support a broad bill that would pay for community college for all.  I'm fine with PSLF since we're essentially giving a grant to underpaid professions even though I would probably set the details a little differently.  But again, universally cancelling student (or mortgage) debt is a one-time boost that benefits a narrow range of people and doesn't address the systemic issue. 

Kind of. Accrued interest has paused, yes. But that also means people who were easily able to pay their student loans before and had no major impact to their income during the pandemic were able to pay down their loans more quickly, once again creating an even larger gap.

[imojoebunny]

Is there some reason that we are not looking at limiting student loans? That is a big part of the problem. If you are getting a degree in Music Therapy, you lifetime earnings are limited. You should not be allowed to take out student loans for $200K. Same with parent loans. I was just talking to my FIL, and he has a friend who is 80, who has $300K in student loans for his 4 kids, plus whatever they have. It is great that little Josphyne gets into X marks the spot University, but if you can't afford to pay for it, with more than a car loan, it is very likely best that she goes to Y, and gets a better deal. It is infuriating to me that they want tax payer dollars to cover college student loans, when they are the highest earners. We need more trades people. I have a friend who works in a factory. He wants to retire, but his employer cannot find apprentices who are interested in doing the kind of work he does, which requires a great deal of skill and training, but not a college degree. He does well, and was here on a visa for many years, until he became a citizen. If college degrees cannot fund themselves, then perhaps we should re-evaluate what we are teaching.

[wanderingback]

Dec 23, 2021 23:29:01 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Is there some reason that we are not looking at limiting student loans? That is a big part of the problem. If you are getting a degree in Music Therapy, you lifetime earnings are limited. You should not be allowed to take out student loans for $200K. Same with parent loans. I was just talking to my FIL, and he has a friend who is 80, who has $300K in student loans for his 4 kids, plus whatever they have. It is great that little Josphyne gets into X marks the spot University, but if you can't afford to pay for it, with more than a car loan, it is very likely best that she goes to Y, and gets a better deal. It is infuriating to me that they want tax payer dollars to cover college student loans, when they are the highest earners. We need more trades people. I have a friend who works in a factory. He wants to retire, but his employer cannot find apprentices who are interested in doing the kind of work he does, which requires a great deal of skill and training, but not a college degree. He does well, and was here on a visa for many years, until he became a citizen. If college degrees cannot fund themselves, then perhaps we should re-evaluate what we are teaching.

That really isn’t feasible or make sense. No one knows what their lifetime earnings will be. Someone could be an English major and become a millionaire and someone could have an engineering degree and make 60k. Before covid and the ruin of the entertainment industry my partner who is a musician made the about the same amount as me as a physician. The problem is the cost of tuition in general, not the degree that people choose. In addition, the interest rate is too high, which clearly the federal government could control/lower.

[taratru]

imojoebunny I agree with wanderingback here. The problem is that higher education is so expensive in the first place. Placing caps on loan amounts based on majors will only exacerbate the wealth divide and continue to demoralize and discourage people from doing very important work. Yes, trades need people. But the way to get those people isn't through not making college more affordable in the first place.

@@@@@@@@




My middle is looking at college in Europe right now, and as a non-EU citizen, it will be significantly cheaper for her to attend university in Netherlands than as an in-state resident at the large university in the town we came from. The world continues to look at how we do things in the US and shake their heads, and I'm starting to do the same.

[imojoebunny]

Dec 23, 2021 23:49:32 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Dec 23, 2021 23:29:01 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Is there some reason that we are not looking at limiting student loans? That is a big part of the problem. If you are getting a degree in Music Therapy, you lifetime earnings are limited. You should not be allowed to take out student loans for $200K. Same with parent loans. I was just talking to my FIL, and he has a friend who is 80, who has $300K in student loans for his 4 kids, plus whatever they have. It is great that little Josphyne gets into X marks the spot University, but if you can't afford to pay for it, with more than a car loan, it is very likely best that she goes to Y, and gets a better deal. It is infuriating to me that they want tax payer dollars to cover college student loans, when they are the highest earners. We need more trades people. I have a friend who works in a factory. He wants to retire, but his employer cannot find apprentices who are interested in doing the kind of work he does, which requires a great deal of skill and training, but not a college degree. He does well, and was here on a visa for many years, until he became a citizen. If college degrees cannot fund themselves, then perhaps we should re-evaluate what we are teaching.

That really isn’t feasible or make sense. No one knows what their lifetime earnings will be. Someone could be an English major and become a millionaire and someone could have an engineering degree and make 60k. Before covid and the ruin of the entertainment industry my partner who is a musician made the about the same amount as me as a physician. The problem is the cost of tuition in general, not the degree that people choose. In addition, the interest rate is too high, which clearly the federal government could control/lower.

My nephews are living this now.  My nephews could have gone to top 10 schools, but they go to "lesser" universities because they pay them to go.  They will graduate with minimal debt vs. 6 figure debt for the "better" institutions.  Should they pay for people who chose to go into deep debt, who were less qualified than they are because they made sound financial choices?  Your argument has little hold, sure there are musicians who make big money.  I know several of them, not just big names you have heard, but people who do other things in the music industry that you hear, but don't know their names.   Coming out of school with 6 figures in debt, they never would have been able to get to that point, they would have had to do whatever to earn money to pay for their housing and loans.  The ultimate problem is that student loans cannot be discharged, unlike every other loan.  Want to become a pre-k teacher, after you go to Elon, enjoy paying for the rest of your life.  Decide to be in the Peace Core for 20 years, after getting your elite degree, better stay outside of the US for the rest of your life, if you had loans you did not pay.  Lenders love student loans, they are the gift that pays forever.  The interest rate reflects the consistent failure of people to pay. It is not a house that can be re-sold. Much of student debt is private debt, and that is even higher.  High Schools and Colleges need to do better before kids are allowed to limit their futures with loans they can never pay back, or will forever be an albatross.  If we want to equal the playing field, our tax dollars should support state universities, not student loans.  

[Saudade]

Dec 23, 2021 23:29:01 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Is there some reason that we are not looking at limiting student loans? That is a big part of the problem. If you are getting a degree in Music Therapy, you lifetime earnings are limited. You should not be allowed to take out student loans for $200K. Same with parent loans. I was just talking to my FIL, and he has a friend who is 80, who has $300K in student loans for his 4 kids, plus whatever they have. It is great that little Josphyne gets into X marks the spot University, but if you can't afford to pay for it, with more than a car loan, it is very likely best that she goes to Y, and gets a better deal. It is infuriating to me that they want tax payer dollars to cover college student loans, when they are the highest earners. We need more trades people. I have a friend who works in a factory. He wants to retire, but his employer cannot find apprentices who are interested in doing the kind of work he does, which requires a great deal of skill and training, but not a college degree. He does well, and was here on a visa for many years, until he became a citizen. If college degrees cannot fund themselves, then perhaps we should re-evaluate what we are teaching.

Actually we need people with these degrees who later go on to law school and med school and etc. It helps provide well-rounded, caring people.

[imojoebunny]

Dec 24, 2021 0:24:15 GMT -5 Saudade said:

Dec 23, 2021 23:29:01 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Is there some reason that we are not looking at limiting student loans? That is a big part of the problem. If you are getting a degree in Music Therapy, you lifetime earnings are limited. You should not be allowed to take out student loans for $200K. Same with parent loans. I was just talking to my FIL, and he has a friend who is 80, who has $300K in student loans for his 4 kids, plus whatever they have. It is great that little Josphyne gets into X marks the spot University, but if you can't afford to pay for it, with more than a car loan, it is very likely best that she goes to Y, and gets a better deal. It is infuriating to me that they want tax payer dollars to cover college student loans, when they are the highest earners. We need more trades people. I have a friend who works in a factory. He wants to retire, but his employer cannot find apprentices who are interested in doing the kind of work he does, which requires a great deal of skill and training, but not a college degree. He does well, and was here on a visa for many years, until he became a citizen. If college degrees cannot fund themselves, then perhaps we should re-evaluate what we are teaching.

Actually we need people with these degrees who later go on to law school and med school and etc. It helps provide well-rounded, caring people.

Please, I would love to see the one Music Therapy major who dropped $200K on undergrad, and went to law school or med school.  I am sure there is one.  I have a cousin with master in city planning who is now medical doctor, but he didn't come out of his masters with $200K in loans.  I doubt many exist, who could continue to add to their tab, after that kind of debt in undergrad.  You added to my point.  It would be too much debt and greatly limit their choice to further their education. 

[wanderingback]

Dec 24, 2021 0:17:02 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Dec 23, 2021 23:49:32 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

That really isn’t feasible or make sense. No one knows what their lifetime earnings will be. Someone could be an English major and become a millionaire and someone could have an engineering degree and make 60k. Before covid and the ruin of the entertainment industry my partner who is a musician made the about the same amount as me as a physician. The problem is the cost of tuition in general, not the degree that people choose. In addition, the interest rate is too high, which clearly the federal government could control/lower.

My nephews are living this now.  My nephews could have gone to top 10 schools, but they go to "lesser" universities because they pay them to go.  They will graduate with minimal debt vs. 6 figure debt for the "better" institutions.  Should they pay for people who chose to go into deep debt, who were less qualified than they are because they made sound financial choices?  Your argument has little hold, sure there are musicians who make big money.  I know several of them, not just big names you have heard, but people who do other things in the music industry that you hear, but don't know their names.   Coming out of school with 6 figures in debt, they never would have been able to get to that point, they would have had to do whatever to earn money to pay for their housing and loans.  The ultimate problem is that student loans cannot be discharged, unlike every other loan.  Want to become a pre-k teacher, after you go to Elon, enjoy paying for the rest of your life.  Decide to be in the Peace Core for 20 years, after getting your elite degree, better stay outside of the US for the rest of your life, if you had loans you did not pay.  Lenders love student loans, they are the gift that pays forever.  The interest rate reflects the consistent failure of people to pay. It is not a house that can be re-sold. Much of student debt is private debt, and that is even higher.  High Schools and Colleges need to do better before kids are allowed to limit their futures with loans they can never pay back, or will forever be an albatross.  If we want to equal the playing field, our tax dollars should support state universities, not student loans.  

Huh? I’m not understanding your argument. What do you mean by “should they pay for people who chose to go in to debt….”?

I literally do not care if someone majors in underwater rhythmic gymnastics at Harvard and decides to work being a traveling acrobat for the rest of their lives even though I chose a cheaper school. That misses the whole point. In general when people get an education that is good for society as a whole., regardless of what they major in. Therefore the problem isn’t people choosing "bad" majors and going in to debt, the problem is that tuition is absolutely insane and interest rates are too high.

Also, your information that much of student debt is private is incorrect. Private debt is only about 7% of all debt. www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt

Lastly, I thought interest rates were determined based on the treasury note, not determined or a reflection on the consistent failure of people to pay back their loans- www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/current-interest-rates/

[imojoebunny]

Dec 24, 2021 0:48:28 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Dec 24, 2021 0:17:02 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

My nephews are living this now.  My nephews could have gone to top 10 schools, but they go to "lesser" universities because they pay them to go.  They will graduate with minimal debt vs. 6 figure debt for the "better" institutions.  Should they pay for people who chose to go into deep debt, who were less qualified than they are because they made sound financial choices?  Your argument has little hold, sure there are musicians who make big money.  I know several of them, not just big names you have heard, but people who do other things in the music industry that you hear, but don't know their names.   Coming out of school with 6 figures in debt, they never would have been able to get to that point, they would have had to do whatever to earn money to pay for their housing and loans.  The ultimate problem is that student loans cannot be discharged, unlike every other loan.  Want to become a pre-k teacher, after you go to Elon, enjoy paying for the rest of your life.  Decide to be in the Peace Core for 20 years, after getting your elite degree, better stay outside of the US for the rest of your life, if you had loans you did not pay.  Lenders love student loans, they are the gift that pays forever.  The interest rate reflects the consistent failure of people to pay. It is not a house that can be re-sold. Much of student debt is private debt, and that is even higher.  High Schools and Colleges need to do better before kids are allowed to limit their futures with loans they can never pay back, or will forever be an albatross.  If we want to equal the playing field, our tax dollars should support state universities, not student loans.  

Huh? I’m not understanding your argument. What do you mean by “should they pay for people who chose to go in to debt….”?

I literally do not care if someone majors in underwater rhythmic gymnastics at Harvard and decides to work being a traveling acrobat for the rest of their lives even though I chose a cheaper school. That misses the whole point. In general when people get an education that is good for society as a whole., regardless of what they major in. Therefore the problem isn’t people choosing "bad" majors and going in to debt, the problem is that tuition is absolutely insane and interest rates are too high.

Also, your information that much of student debt is private is incorrect. Private debt is only about 7% of all debt. www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt

Lastly, I thought interest rates were determined based on the treasury note, not determined or a reflection on the consistent failure of people to pay back their loans- www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/current-interest-rates/

Sorry, I thought the reason for government funded education was to produce adults who could support themselves and their families.  It is cute that we want to support people who cannot afford their loans, but it isn't realistic.  I would love for working parents to pay enough for my pre-k teaching friend to be able to support a family on his salary with his master's degree, but I don't see many people being like, let me pay $50 an hour for what many consider "child care".  That isn't a reflection of his worth, which is so much more.  It is a reflection of societies ability and willingness to pay.  There are more and more loans given to parents who are co-signing for children, and some of those loans are not necessarily captured in this data.    www.forbes.com/sites/markkantrowitz/2020/11/22/who-owes-how-much-in-student-loans/?sh=32c18f215b2a   You can howl at the wind, but the reality is, that people going into deep debt for student loans are creating a huge wall for themselves, that cannot be discharged, and it is an anchor for their entire lives.  

[basilosaurus]

Dec 24, 2021 1:10:20 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Dec 24, 2021 0:48:28 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Huh? I’m not understanding your argument. What do you mean by “should they pay for people who chose to go in to debt….”?

I literally do not care if someone majors in underwater rhythmic gymnastics at Harvard and decides to work being a traveling acrobat for the rest of their lives even though I chose a cheaper school. That misses the whole point. In general when people get an education that is good for society as a whole., regardless of what they major in. Therefore the problem isn’t people choosing "bad" majors and going in to debt, the problem is that tuition is absolutely insane and interest rates are too high.

Also, your information that much of student debt is private is incorrect. Private debt is only about 7% of all debt. www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt

Lastly, I thought interest rates were determined based on the treasury note, not determined or a reflection on the consistent failure of people to pay back their loans- www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/current-interest-rates/

Sorry, I thought the reason for government funded education was to produce adults who could support themselves and their families.  It is cute that we want to support people who cannot afford their loans, but it isn't realistic.  I would love for working parents to pay enough for my pre-k teaching friend to be able to support a family on his salary with his master's degree, but I don't see many people being like, let me pay $50 an hour for what many consider "child care".  That isn't a reflection of his worth, which is so much more.  It is a reflection of societies ability and willingness to pay.  There are more and more loans given to parents who are co-signing for children, and some of those loans are not necessarily captured in this data.    www.forbes.com/sites/markkantrowitz/2020/11/22/who-owes-how-much-in-student-loans/?sh=32c18f215b2a   You can howl at the wind, but the reality is, that people going into deep debt for student loans are creating a huge wall for themselves, that cannot be discharged, and it is an anchor for their entire lives.  

So, your solution is no loans for those, by your own admission, do valuable work but Americans don't value it? So, we'll only get the most independently wealthy in those professions, and that's beneficial... how?

Sure, I'd rather the government subsidize to get people like that a living wage, and to subsidize (ECE and college) education so all have access. And I'd rather these loans were structured very differently. I'd also rather have universal healthcare than paying out my arse for insurance to a for profit usury system where they also benefit from tax cuts.

I sure as fuck would prefer my tax dollars to go to music therapy (wtf is your beef with that?) than to some asshole's private jet and 50,000 sq ft mansion.

Not canceling debt because the system is shit and your nephews did the "right" thing is so short sighted.

You'd think with covid there would at least be a modicum of sympathy for people who choose lower paying jobs that our society values, and they've been woken up to that value. Yep, I went into debt for my nursing degree. My biology degree wasn't practical with my lifestyle as a trailing spouse. And I've often barely received a living wage. Teachers go into debt, as you so helpfully pointed out, only to be blamed for everything, to teach 3 styles at once without being protected from disease. But, by all means, only the independently wealthy with their reputation to see beyond the end of their nose, those are who should staff those jobs in an understaffed world.

[Saudade]

Dec 24, 2021 0:36:02 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Dec 24, 2021 0:24:15 GMT -5 Saudade said:

Actually we need people with these degrees who later go on to law school and med school and etc. It helps provide well-rounded, caring people.

Please, I would love to see the one Music Therapy major who dropped $200K on undergrad, and went to law school or med school.  I am sure there is one.  I have a cousin with master in city planning who is now medical doctor, but he didn't come out of his masters with $200K in loans.  I doubt many exist, who could continue to add to their tab, after that kind of debt in undergrad.  You added to my point.  It would be too much debt and greatly limit their choice to further their education. 

Sure, maybe not "many" exist, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.

When I graduated undergrad in 2008 at least half the pre-med students were double majored in science + fine/performative arts. 

It was around that time that the U of MN med school dropped the requirement of science degree for pre med and focused on other degrees + required coursework. 

[redheadbaker]

Dec 24, 2021 1:10:20 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

Dec 24, 2021 0:48:28 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Huh? I’m not understanding your argument. What do you mean by “should they pay for people who chose to go in to debt….”?

I literally do not care if someone majors in underwater rhythmic gymnastics at Harvard and decides to work being a traveling acrobat for the rest of their lives even though I chose a cheaper school. That misses the whole point. In general when people get an education that is good for society as a whole., regardless of what they major in. Therefore the problem isn’t people choosing "bad" majors and going in to debt, the problem is that tuition is absolutely insane and interest rates are too high.

Also, your information that much of student debt is private is incorrect. Private debt is only about 7% of all debt. www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt

Lastly, I thought interest rates were determined based on the treasury note, not determined or a reflection on the consistent failure of people to pay back their loans- www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/current-interest-rates/

Sorry, I thought the reason for government funded education was to produce adults who could support themselves and their families.  It is cute that we want to support people who cannot afford their loans, but it isn't realistic.  I would love for working parents to pay enough for my pre-k teaching friend to be able to support a family on his salary with his master's degree, but I don't see many people being like, let me pay $50 an hour for what many consider "child care".  That isn't a reflection of his worth, which is so much more.  It is a reflection of societies ability and willingness to pay.  There are more and more loans given to parents who are co-signing for children, and some of those loans are not necessarily captured in this data.    www.forbes.com/sites/markkantrowitz/2020/11/22/who-owes-how-much-in-student-loans/?sh=32c18f215b2a   You can howl at the wind, but the reality is, that people going into deep debt for student loans are creating a huge wall for themselves, that cannot be discharged, and it is an anchor for their entire lives.  

God, you are so fucking offensive.

[seeyalater52]

I think y’all know that student debt is not my #1 political priority (def support it though) but holy shit some of these arguments are gross.

Just fuck everyone who got bad advice about what kind of debt to salary ratios were acceptable for student loans I guess. Fuck the whole generation of us who went to college before the widespread reckoning about the student loan debt crisis and then graduated from college into one of the worst recessions this country has ever seen. Especially extra fuck us first generation students who didn’t have anyone to give us alternatives beyond college that could provide for a better life (and before anyone starts waxing about trades, going into trades has not saved 90% of my high school classmates from a life of poverty so I’m not really here for that argument.)

You have to be so incredibly myopic not to recognize that other people have different life circumstances than you and then assert that all policy should be based on people like you making the choices you made and fuck everyone else because personal responsibility and bootstraps. If you’re not a Republican with that attitude you sure sound like one.