4 ms·

This is pretty selfish but every time I see news about student loans I start to worry about having to pay for other people's student loans. I spent three years

This is pretty selfish but every time I see news about student loans I start to worry about having to pay for other people's student loans. I spent three years cutting everything out of my life that wasn't necessary so that I could pay off my $50,000 in loans because I didn't want to have the debt. It was a Spartan existence indeed. Now that I've made that sacrifice and come out the other side, it makes me mad to think that I may have to pay for others to pay off their debts as well. Why can't they pay it off themselves? No one forced them to take on the loans. Why is my paycheck being considered for looting? I would feel taken advantage of too. If I knew I could get someone else to pay off my student loans, I would have used my resources much differently. I would have lived more in the moment instead of hunkering down and paying it off. Like I said; selfish thoughts. But I can't help but feel a sense of injustice when considering a situation where I have to pay for other debtors student loans.

Retric 8y ago
The people bailed out would be people making the loans not taking the loans.
- jstanley 8y ago
  But the money to bail them out comes from tax payers.
  - Retric 8y ago
    That's the bailout or not bailout question. We can also just let people discharge the loans without bailing out the people making the loans. Currently, if someone dies broke after graduation the outstanding loans are paid back by the government. So, basically people are making risk free loans right now, changing that so they take some risk is an option. IMO, loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy 20 years after graduation. That would slightly increase the loan interest rate, but not cost taxpayers a dime. We might also see things like higher interest rates for getting an art degree which IMO is a useful feature.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  It would be both of them, really. Right now, under US law, you can't declare bankruptcy from student loans. A bailout would imply changing that rule so that we can let people with student debt off of their obligations. You'd also, natch, be bailing out the people who hold this debt. I'm really not sure what the path forward is, here. Theoretically, the most important line of defense against a bad loan being made is that the lender doesn't want to lose money, and therefore won't make a bad loan in the first place. This isn't always awesome on its face, because it means that people don't get to buy things they don't have the money for right now. But it's really kind of nice. It also protects people from taking on debts they can't afford, because that translates into default risk. And it protects people from taking on debt to buy things that are overpriced, because that translates into collateral risk. But at some point we decided that being able to get certain kinds of loans (mortgages and student loans) is very nearly a natural right, because they give access to things that we associate with prosperity (land ownership and a postsecondary education). So then the government sets up programs to greatly reduce the barriers to access to these kinds of loans, by essentially setting up a whole bunch of special rules and programs that make it easy for lenders to ignore default risk. And if you don't care about default risk, you'll make much bigger loans than you would otherwise, which fuels prices getting out of control. We saw how that went down with housing. Now we're going to see how that goes down with student loans. I'm not sure there are any good answers there. Personally, I like the idea of leaving lenders to sink or swim. They've had a nice long ride on a gravy train fueled by government largesse, and, if they failed to contingency plan for the possibility that someone might turn off the gravy spout, I don't feel particularly bad about that. But the lenders are financial institutions, and, as we've seen, the financial industry is such a horrible tangle that it's hard to anticipate the ultimate repercussions of letting them fail. But it's also hard to anticipate the repercussions of a bailout - money doesn't grown on trees, so the funds used to make the bailout need to come from somewhere. When it comes to government intervention on this sort of thing, though, I'm kind of inclined to take my mother's advice: "It'll never heal if you don't stop picking at it."
  - Retric 8y ago
    Currently the US taxpayer is on the hook for bad loans. My point is, letting people discharge loans does not require a bailout. So sure we could discharge loans while also bailing out the people who made these loans, but again they are different questions. As you say their are long term issues with the availability and cost of student loans. I don't have any great answers, but framing things as only two options is greatly simplifying what we can do.
- briandear 8y ago
  Is there a difference? It’s still someone else’s money.
scruffyherder 8y ago
What, you expect me to live without a $1,500 iPhone!?
- hskalee123 8y ago
  I'm actually surprised by the amount of people that have an iPhone. I'm guessing it's because of the payment plans that the providers have setup these days but who knows.
  - booleandilemma 8y ago
    Pretty much. This is also why you see a lot of phones with cracked screens. Many people buying these phones through payment plans can’t afford to repair them.
mywittyname 8y ago
I get this feeling sometimes too. But I realize that lots of people are living a spartan existence and still not making a dent in their loans. I think we have to consider what's best for society. Having so many people living the first half of their working lives buried under tens of thousands of dollars in debt is going to hurt all of us, even those who were "responsible" with their loans. Too many important jobs in society require lots of education but don't pay well enough to actually cover living expenses and loans. Think counselors, educators, even nursing is moving in this direction. We need to bite the bullet and help these people, otherwise, we will all suffer the consequences. These jobs will go unfilled, people will be homeless or living in poor conditions, and it will be future generations that bear the costs from this.
- booleandilemma 8y ago
  So how much do you owe?
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    $0. Like most people here, I have a relatively well-paying engineering job. I have several members of my family which are different degrees of fucked though. Teaching and counseling were never paths to riches, but in our current situation, they are paths to poverty.
- ng12 8y ago
  > Too many important jobs in society require lots of education but don't pay well enough to actually cover living expenses and loans. Think counselors, educators, even nursing is moving in this direction. Are these professions immune from supply and demand?
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    At some point organizations just can't afford to pay what they need to survive. We might have plenty of teachers if pay started at $90/yr, but since no school can afford to pay that much, we are stuck with whatever the supply is at below market wages. Which is exactly my point: most of these jobs will go unfilled and the workloads will be passed onto those who've stuck around -- and they won't earn more money because of it.
dionidium 8y ago
Another aspect that's troubling is the new, revisionist notion that nobody could have known that so many degrees would be worthless (in market terms) and that kids were tricked into studying worthless (in market terms) subjects without realizing they'd be worthless (in market terms). This is maddening nonsense. I started college in 1999. Jokes about English majors asking if you want fries with that were mainstream when I was in grade school. There isn't a single person who has attended college in the last 40 years who didn't have enough information available to make better decisions (in market terms) about what to study. Kids will be kids and they'll make bad decisions. Fine. But there's nothing new here (except that, obviously, the consequences of those bad decisions get larger as costs rise).
zippidydooda 8y ago
1. I don't think you understand how how student loans or taxes in the US work. 2. Your misplaced anger should be pointed at the rotten system that forced you to live on ramen noodles for 3 years even after getting a degree and presumably a good job.
- sovietmudkipz 8y ago
  > 1. I don't think you understand how how student loans or taxes in the US work. That may be the case. Which points of how student loans or taxes work in the US are relevant? Student loans represent a bet that your degree will improve your job prospects and that your future earnings will more than pay for your degree. The loan is you paying for your own further education. Society could have paid for it through taxes, like it did for K - 12 education. I would like to point out that I will pay for future generations throughout my working life. Taxes is a way of providing goods and services for society (read: people in a community) by having society pay for it. Taxes is a pool of resource that people in government are able to spend. > 2. Your misplaced anger should be pointed at the rotten system that forced you to live on ramen noodles for 3 years even after getting a degree and presumably a good job. Hmm. It's hard for me to redirect my anger to the system. Let me show my thinking and maybe someone can clear up where my thoughts are going astray. All levels of Education has a price. I was not producing while I was going through college; I instead was taking. Society could have paid for my education, like it did for my K - 12 education. But instead I paid for my own education, by taking out loans and working while earning my degree. This puts an onus on me to choose a degree that could pay for my loans after college. I like the idea of bearing the responsibility for later success by my choice in degree. I don't know if I would have the same sense of responsibility if I knew society was paying for my degree. When I think about paying for other's degrees I think of the students who didn't consider the situation appropriately, and instead chose a degree that has little job prospects and aren't entrepreneurial enough to use their education to further their income. This is a very transactional way of framing the issue but I think this is the right way to frame it. I suspect that the price of education is so high because of how much easy money there is out there. Everyone can get a loan, no matter what degree they're investing in. Since the supply of money is so readily available, schools are able to demand more for their product. I am slightly mad at that because the market of education was meddled with by the U.S. government. What is rotten about this system, beyond the U.S. government messing with Education's market forces?
mycorrhizal 8y ago
I definitely see where you are coming from, but I think it is the wrong approach in these situations. The question to ask is are these loans negatively impacting the economy in a way that makes a material difference to me? (also a selfish viewpoint) If the answer is yes than I would support programs to help ameliorate this situation. That being said I have no idea what the right answer is to that question.
toasterlovin 8y ago
I am ideologically opposed to providing free college for everybody, but it may actually be a cheaper option than the student loan bailout that I believe will inevitably happen.

Retric 8y ago

The people bailed out would be people making the loans not taking the loans.

jstanley 8y ago
But the money to bail them out comes from tax payers.
- Retric 8y ago
  That's the bailout or not bailout question. We can also just let people discharge the loans without bailing out the people making the loans. Currently, if someone dies broke after graduation the outstanding loans are paid back by the government. So, basically people are making risk free loans right now, changing that so they take some risk is an option. IMO, loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy 20 years after graduation. That would slightly increase the loan interest rate, but not cost taxpayers a dime. We might also see things like higher interest rates for getting an art degree which IMO is a useful feature.
bunderbunder 8y ago
It would be both of them, really. Right now, under US law, you can't declare bankruptcy from student loans. A bailout would imply changing that rule so that we can let people with student debt off of their obligations. You'd also, natch, be bailing out the people who hold this debt. I'm really not sure what the path forward is, here. Theoretically, the most important line of defense against a bad loan being made is that the lender doesn't want to lose money, and therefore won't make a bad loan in the first place. This isn't always awesome on its face, because it means that people don't get to buy things they don't have the money for right now. But it's really kind of nice. It also protects people from taking on debts they can't afford, because that translates into default risk. And it protects people from taking on debt to buy things that are overpriced, because that translates into collateral risk. But at some point we decided that being able to get certain kinds of loans (mortgages and student loans) is very nearly a natural right, because they give access to things that we associate with prosperity (land ownership and a postsecondary education). So then the government sets up programs to greatly reduce the barriers to access to these kinds of loans, by essentially setting up a whole bunch of special rules and programs that make it easy for lenders to ignore default risk. And if you don't care about default risk, you'll make much bigger loans than you would otherwise, which fuels prices getting out of control. We saw how that went down with housing. Now we're going to see how that goes down with student loans. I'm not sure there are any good answers there. Personally, I like the idea of leaving lenders to sink or swim. They've had a nice long ride on a gravy train fueled by government largesse, and, if they failed to contingency plan for the possibility that someone might turn off the gravy spout, I don't feel particularly bad about that. But the lenders are financial institutions, and, as we've seen, the financial industry is such a horrible tangle that it's hard to anticipate the ultimate repercussions of letting them fail. But it's also hard to anticipate the repercussions of a bailout - money doesn't grown on trees, so the funds used to make the bailout need to come from somewhere. When it comes to government intervention on this sort of thing, though, I'm kind of inclined to take my mother's advice: "It'll never heal if you don't stop picking at it."
- Retric 8y ago
  Currently the US taxpayer is on the hook for bad loans. My point is, letting people discharge loans does not require a bailout. So sure we could discharge loans while also bailing out the people who made these loans, but again they are different questions. As you say their are long term issues with the availability and cost of student loans. I don't have any great answers, but framing things as only two options is greatly simplifying what we can do.
briandear 8y ago
Is there a difference? It’s still someone else’s money.

scruffyherder 8y ago

What, you expect me to live without a $1,500 iPhone!?

hskalee123 8y ago
I'm actually surprised by the amount of people that have an iPhone. I'm guessing it's because of the payment plans that the providers have setup these days but who knows.
- booleandilemma 8y ago
  Pretty much. This is also why you see a lot of phones with cracked screens. Many people buying these phones through payment plans can’t afford to repair them.

mywittyname 8y ago

I get this feeling sometimes too. But I realize that lots of people are living a spartan existence and still not making a dent in their loans. I think we have to consider what's best for society. Having so many people living the first half of their working lives buried under tens of thousands of dollars in debt is going to hurt all of us, even those who were "responsible" with their loans. Too many important jobs in society require lots of education but don't pay well enough to actually cover living expenses and loans. Think counselors, educators, even nursing is moving in this direction. We need to bite the bullet and help these people, otherwise, we will all suffer the consequences. These jobs will go unfilled, people will be homeless or living in poor conditions, and it will be future generations that bear the costs from this.

booleandilemma 8y ago
So how much do you owe?
- mywittyname 8y ago
  $0. Like most people here, I have a relatively well-paying engineering job. I have several members of my family which are different degrees of fucked though. Teaching and counseling were never paths to riches, but in our current situation, they are paths to poverty.
ng12 8y ago
> Too many important jobs in society require lots of education but don't pay well enough to actually cover living expenses and loans. Think counselors, educators, even nursing is moving in this direction. Are these professions immune from supply and demand?
- mywittyname 8y ago
  At some point organizations just can't afford to pay what they need to survive. We might have plenty of teachers if pay started at $90/yr, but since no school can afford to pay that much, we are stuck with whatever the supply is at below market wages. Which is exactly my point: most of these jobs will go unfilled and the workloads will be passed onto those who've stuck around -- and they won't earn more money because of it.

dionidium 8y ago

Another aspect that's troubling is the new, revisionist notion that nobody could have known that so many degrees would be worthless (in market terms) and that kids were tricked into studying worthless (in market terms) subjects without realizing they'd be worthless (in market terms). This is maddening nonsense. I started college in 1999. Jokes about English majors asking if you want fries with that were mainstream when I was in grade school. There isn't a single person who has attended college in the last 40 years who didn't have enough information available to make better decisions (in market terms) about what to study. Kids will be kids and they'll make bad decisions. Fine. But there's nothing new here (except that, obviously, the consequences of those bad decisions get larger as costs rise).

zippidydooda 8y ago

1. I don't think you understand how how student loans or taxes in the US work. 2. Your misplaced anger should be pointed at the rotten system that forced you to live on ramen noodles for 3 years even after getting a degree and presumably a good job.

sovietmudkipz 8y ago
> 1. I don't think you understand how how student loans or taxes in the US work. That may be the case. Which points of how student loans or taxes work in the US are relevant? Student loans represent a bet that your degree will improve your job prospects and that your future earnings will more than pay for your degree. The loan is you paying for your own further education. Society could have paid for it through taxes, like it did for K - 12 education. I would like to point out that I will pay for future generations throughout my working life. Taxes is a way of providing goods and services for society (read: people in a community) by having society pay for it. Taxes is a pool of resource that people in government are able to spend. > 2. Your misplaced anger should be pointed at the rotten system that forced you to live on ramen noodles for 3 years even after getting a degree and presumably a good job. Hmm. It's hard for me to redirect my anger to the system. Let me show my thinking and maybe someone can clear up where my thoughts are going astray. All levels of Education has a price. I was not producing while I was going through college; I instead was taking. Society could have paid for my education, like it did for my K - 12 education. But instead I paid for my own education, by taking out loans and working while earning my degree. This puts an onus on me to choose a degree that could pay for my loans after college. I like the idea of bearing the responsibility for later success by my choice in degree. I don't know if I would have the same sense of responsibility if I knew society was paying for my degree. When I think about paying for other's degrees I think of the students who didn't consider the situation appropriately, and instead chose a degree that has little job prospects and aren't entrepreneurial enough to use their education to further their income. This is a very transactional way of framing the issue but I think this is the right way to frame it. I suspect that the price of education is so high because of how much easy money there is out there. Everyone can get a loan, no matter what degree they're investing in. Since the supply of money is so readily available, schools are able to demand more for their product. I am slightly mad at that because the market of education was meddled with by the U.S. government. What is rotten about this system, beyond the U.S. government messing with Education's market forces?

mycorrhizal 8y ago

I definitely see where you are coming from, but I think it is the wrong approach in these situations. The question to ask is are these loans negatively impacting the economy in a way that makes a material difference to me? (also a selfish viewpoint) If the answer is yes than I would support programs to help ameliorate this situation. That being said I have no idea what the right answer is to that question.

toasterlovin 8y ago

I am ideologically opposed to providing free college for everybody, but it may actually be a cheaper option than the student loan bailout that I believe will inevitably happen.