4 ms·

> Debt forgiveness for student loans is a horrible idea. This comment reeks of privilege. It ignores the fact that vulnerable people, poor people may have made

> Debt forgiveness for student loans is a horrible idea. This comment reeks of privilege. It ignores the fact that vulnerable people, poor people may have made a decision to to try to improve their future at a young age, say 17 or 18, and are forced to live in debt when their situation isn’t improved or worsens over time. Loan forgiveness should be a tool that can be used to relieve suffering and/or stagnation in some circumstances. Hardly a horrible idea.

D13Fd 5y ago
I'm pretty sure that a very high number of the people who would get general college loan forgiveness are privileged people who made poor choices.
- canyonero 5y ago
  Anyone in a privileged position is not going to be incurring tens to hundreds of thousands of student loan debt because they don't have to. The people disproportionately affected by student loans and are borrowing huge chunks of money to pay for school, don't have it. How do you see that as privilege?
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    That sounds like a very narrow definition of privilege, if it only includes people who can afford to drop tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on college without loans.
- noahtallen 5y ago
  It’s important to note that the age at which one accepts the massive financial burden of university is around 17 years old or even younger. So you aren’t even legally considered an adult. At the same time, you likely have most people in authority positions in your life trying to get you to go to college. So whether or not it’s a poor choice doesn’t really matter. The impact of that choice is really too difficult to understand until later in life, at which point it’s too late. The end result, and really the only thing that matters, is that young people in America are royally fucked, and many aspects of that are outside of their control. Bad societal things tend to happen when a certain class/generation gets completely screwed over (many examples throughout history, including the French Revolution and World War II.) Which is why it’s important to solve the issue instead of blaming people. With student loan forgiveness specifically, there are more options than just forgive everyone. We need to change how federal loans work moving forward to avoid more problems. At the same time, you could forgive loans if the total dollar amount you’ve paid matches the principle of the loan. (Lots of people are on repayment plans where they only chip away at interest.) But the real question is why would it be a bad thing to allow young people to have an extra several hundred to thousand dollars per month? Obviously there would be a huge economic impact. Ok the one hand, people could spend more on local businesses, which would almost definitely be good. More spending in general is good for the economy. On the other hand, more people start being able to afford “expensive things” like houses, which are very scarce. In those markets, competition would increase, highlighting the scarcity we already have. But the root problem isn’t that people can suddenly afford a better life, but that we’re putting up with scarcity in several parts of the economy. If we also made economic or policy changes to promote abundance (e.g. an abundance of new housing above and beyond population growth), that problem also goes away. We all want to live in a better world, I’d hope. Public student loan repayments are regressive and have no place in this better world unless they’re changed drastically.
- 30367286 5y ago
  This is a design choice and not inherent in college loan forgiveness. For example, one could easily imagine a loan forgiveness program where only people making less than $50,000 a year have their loans forgiven. Or a program where the loans are not forgiven all at once, but the regular payments are taken over by the government, and the person becomes responsible for the payments themselves if they begin to make more than some inflation-adjusted amount.
pyuser583 5y ago
Student debt forgiveness would disproportionately favor the higher educated (obviously). People with higher education tend to make more. It’s a regressive policy. Not necessarily a bad policy. But one that favors the better off.

D13Fd 5y ago

I'm pretty sure that a very high number of the people who would get general college loan forgiveness are privileged people who made poor choices.

canyonero 5y ago
Anyone in a privileged position is not going to be incurring tens to hundreds of thousands of student loan debt because they don't have to. The people disproportionately affected by student loans and are borrowing huge chunks of money to pay for school, don't have it. How do you see that as privilege?
- D13Fd 5y ago
  That sounds like a very narrow definition of privilege, if it only includes people who can afford to drop tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on college without loans.
noahtallen 5y ago
It’s important to note that the age at which one accepts the massive financial burden of university is around 17 years old or even younger. So you aren’t even legally considered an adult. At the same time, you likely have most people in authority positions in your life trying to get you to go to college. So whether or not it’s a poor choice doesn’t really matter. The impact of that choice is really too difficult to understand until later in life, at which point it’s too late. The end result, and really the only thing that matters, is that young people in America are royally fucked, and many aspects of that are outside of their control. Bad societal things tend to happen when a certain class/generation gets completely screwed over (many examples throughout history, including the French Revolution and World War II.) Which is why it’s important to solve the issue instead of blaming people. With student loan forgiveness specifically, there are more options than just forgive everyone. We need to change how federal loans work moving forward to avoid more problems. At the same time, you could forgive loans if the total dollar amount you’ve paid matches the principle of the loan. (Lots of people are on repayment plans where they only chip away at interest.) But the real question is why would it be a bad thing to allow young people to have an extra several hundred to thousand dollars per month? Obviously there would be a huge economic impact. Ok the one hand, people could spend more on local businesses, which would almost definitely be good. More spending in general is good for the economy. On the other hand, more people start being able to afford “expensive things” like houses, which are very scarce. In those markets, competition would increase, highlighting the scarcity we already have. But the root problem isn’t that people can suddenly afford a better life, but that we’re putting up with scarcity in several parts of the economy. If we also made economic or policy changes to promote abundance (e.g. an abundance of new housing above and beyond population growth), that problem also goes away. We all want to live in a better world, I’d hope. Public student loan repayments are regressive and have no place in this better world unless they’re changed drastically.
30367286 5y ago
This is a design choice and not inherent in college loan forgiveness. For example, one could easily imagine a loan forgiveness program where only people making less than $50,000 a year have their loans forgiven. Or a program where the loans are not forgiven all at once, but the regular payments are taken over by the government, and the person becomes responsible for the payments themselves if they begin to make more than some inflation-adjusted amount.

pyuser583 5y ago

Student debt forgiveness would disproportionately favor the higher educated (obviously). People with higher education tend to make more. It’s a regressive policy. Not necessarily a bad policy. But one that favors the better off.