7 ms·

Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed

Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed and it would actually be a signal to universities and students alike, that Universities can charge more, and students can continue to take out larger loans because... they might be forgiven at some future point in time.

vsareto 4y ago
With free universities, they wouldn't have to charge students anything.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  And the government would then cap the amount that universities get per student, and it would allow poor people to go to college as well. Everyone winds up paying tuition via taxes over time.
  - weberer 4y ago
    Poor people already go to college. You don't have to pay anything up front. Its entirely debt-based.
pyrophane 4y ago
I'd like to see student loan debt forgiven along with implementing a plan to address the cause of this ballooning debt. Unfortunately, this is the United States, and federal legislation on just about anything is currently impossible if there is any opportunity at all to turn it into a divisive issue. Even if the democrats managed to build a majority that would allow them to pass whatever they wanted, tackling a problem like this in a forward-looking way seems beyond them.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Every problem that gets solved is one less thing to campaign on. And since we don't hold our politicians accountable, they can just campaign on the same things over and over and never do anything about them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > I'd like to see student loan debt forgiven along with implementing a plan to address the cause of this ballooning debt. Forgiving debt incentivizes debt though. It's impossible to address the root cause and forgive the debt.
  - pyrophane 4y ago
    That's why I'm suggesting that forgiveness of any existing debt should be linked to a big policy change. For example, make student load debt dischargeable in bankruptcy like any other debt, and at the same time impose tuition caps at state universities to make them affordable again.
pdabbadabba 4y ago
I reluctantly agree--unless the forgiveness is coupled with new laws and regulations that substantially reform the system (perhaps by eliminating the federally subsidized student loan system altogether, and restoring the more generous grant system of yore). If we do nothing to change the system, what are new college applicants going to think? Either they'll have to pay back their loans and, compared to those who wend before, get totally screwed. Or borrow with the belief that the debt will eventually be forgiven. Neither are good. And, FWIW, I have a boat load of student-loan debt that I would absolutely love to have forgiven. But it's a bad idea unless the White House and congress are able to address the root of the problem.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > If we do nothing to change the system, what are new college applicants going to think? Either they'll have to pay back their loans and, compared to those who wend before, get totally screwed. EDIT: I misread your comment. Please disregard. They got screwed when they took the loan out, not when they pay it back. The terms never changed, people just realize they made a bad decision. Sometimes people argue they cant actually consent to the loan in which case we should just cease the loans immediately. Part of the puzzle is rebuking this sort of logic: "Education is important. Having a bachelors degree is practically required. Therefor a loan is worth it." Without any qualifiers. This suggests the degree job prospects and loan amount don't matter. They do. If education is expensive enough, it's just not worth it.
memish 4y ago
Student debt is mostly held by the richer half of the US population. Serious question: would it do more good if instead of giving money to people with student debt, you gave money to people without it? The first test of a potential policy is whether it's better than doing exactly the opposite. If you can't even prove that, it's probably not a good policy. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1521112550770946048 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1521112550770946048
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 4y ago
  Income is not wealth. Especially when you factor in student loan debt! You can make a higher income than another person but still be poorer than them because of debt. Also, income can change a lot from year to year. My income certain has. If the economy goes to pot, suddenly a lot of people with higher income will become unemployed. And the years you spend in school are typically very low or no income, so you're not building any wealth during those years. And if you go to graduate school, it's even more years of low to no income.
  - sevenf0ur 4y ago
    A college graduate will earn $900,000 more than a non-college graduate over their lifetime. > You can make a higher income than another person but still be poorer than them because of debt. Maybe we should focus our money on making college costs more affordable rather than forgiving loans and signaling to universities and students that it's safe to take on more debt?
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > A college graduate will earn $900,000 more than a non-college graduate over their lifetime. A male college graduate, on average. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education... "Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor's degrees earn $630,000 more. Men with graduate degrees earn $1.5 million more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with graduate degrees earn $1.1 million more." Of course these are just averages. There's no guarantee that any given person will earn even a penny more. Not to mention that not everyone who goes to college even finishes their degree, but they accumulate the debt regardless. > Maybe we should focus our money on making college costs more affordable rather than forgiving loans Why not both? The thing is, the people who make a lot of money after college are able to pay off their debt. The real problem is the people who get stuck with debt for decades, unable to pay it off. It's a lifetime burden. Senior citizens are a very fast growing group of student loan debtors. I don't necessarily believe that you should forgive student loan debt the minute someone walks out of graduation. But what about decades later? Anyway, it's important to remember that these lifetime earnings numbers don't include college costs. You have to subtract those. Unless your parents pay for your college, in which case you have no student loan debt.
lapcat 4y ago
> this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed This is a false dichotomy. The root core of the issue should be addressed. However, that would require an act of Congress, whereas federal student loan forgiveness can be accomplished immediately via executive action. This is why people are calling for it now, because it can be done right now. Also, the President promised to do so multiple times during his campaign. > Universities can charge more, and students can continue to take out larger loans Universities are already charging more, and students are continuing to take out larger loans despite the lack of forgiveness.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"However, that would require an act of Congress, whereas federal student loan forgiveness can be accomplished immediately via executive action. This is why people are calling for it now, because it can be done right now. Also, the President promised to do so multiple times during his campaign." I can't be the only one who feels like this is simply 'buying votes' in an attempt to try and salvage some seats for the upcoming midterms. And, of course the people with debt want the debt forgiven unilaterally and post-haste, so it makes sense they're clamoring for it. In a democracy, who turns down free money?
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I can't be the only one who feels like this is "buying votes". Votes are already bought by wealthy campaign contributors. Anyway, aren't politicians supposed to help the public financially? If a politician campaigns on tax cuts, tax credits, and tax incentives, isn't that also "buying votes"? Which politician is not buying votes with their stated economic policies?
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      I sense there is a difference between passing policy which broadly affects future actions (tax rates, credits, etc.) and making a campaign promise to directly pay (or in this case forgive) a lump sum of money to a certain contingent of the electorate.
drewcoo 4y ago
If we were dealing with the victims of a school shooting, first we'd make sure none of them were going to bleed out. Then they'd be prioritized for dealing with their root cause injuries. We can apply similar tactics to these school financial injuries. We don't need to choose one or the other. And the core problem with people taking on debt to pay for college in the US is individual people having to pay for college, unlike many other countries. How much it costs is a secondary issue. If it can cost anything, market forces will boost the price until it passes a fairness threshold.
- Aunche 4y ago
  Providing emergency aid to shooting victims doesn't incentivize more school shooters. If anything, it's a disincentive because it counteracts their goal. By contrast, forgiving student loans incentivizes more people to take loans, which in turn allows colleges to raise tuition prices.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > If we were dealing with the victims of a school shooting, first we'd make sure none of them were going to bleed out. Well... no. Obviously stopping the shooter is the top priority. Beyond that, it depends on how many people are there to solve the problem and how many victims there are. Everything beyond whats required to stop the shooter would attend to the wounded.
kansface 4y ago
Debt forgiveness is indeed an extreme, perverse incentive. Capping federal aid seems unthinkable. Asking something of all of those grads (service) on behalf of forgiving their debt also seems unthinkable. Forgiving college loans is a wealth transfer to the highest earning cohort... I'm not in favor of a debt jubilee.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. I mean, it should be an unpopular opinion that a claim that both misrepresents the basic processes and incentives involved and requires effect to precede cause by more than a decade is perceived as “exactly why we should“ do or not do anything, but unfortunately it's actually a very popular opinion in this case. (To the extent there is a real argument—and this one is not it—for federal student lending being a cost driver for education, that would be a good reason why debt forgiveness, if done, should be accompanied by lending reform to correct the problem going forward; of course, even without it being a cost driver, any argument for debt forgiveness is itself an argument for lending reform preventing the problem addressed by forgiveness from recurring.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

vsareto 4y ago

With free universities, they wouldn't have to charge students anything.

lamontcg 4y ago
And the government would then cap the amount that universities get per student, and it would allow poor people to go to college as well. Everyone winds up paying tuition via taxes over time.
- weberer 4y ago
  Poor people already go to college. You don't have to pay anything up front. Its entirely debt-based.

pyrophane 4y ago

I'd like to see student loan debt forgiven along with implementing a plan to address the cause of this ballooning debt. Unfortunately, this is the United States, and federal legislation on just about anything is currently impossible if there is any opportunity at all to turn it into a divisive issue. Even if the democrats managed to build a majority that would allow them to pass whatever they wanted, tackling a problem like this in a forward-looking way seems beyond them.

jaywalk 4y ago
Every problem that gets solved is one less thing to campaign on. And since we don't hold our politicians accountable, they can just campaign on the same things over and over and never do anything about them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nonethewiser 4y ago
> I'd like to see student loan debt forgiven along with implementing a plan to address the cause of this ballooning debt. Forgiving debt incentivizes debt though. It's impossible to address the root cause and forgive the debt.
- pyrophane 4y ago
  That's why I'm suggesting that forgiveness of any existing debt should be linked to a big policy change. For example, make student load debt dischargeable in bankruptcy like any other debt, and at the same time impose tuition caps at state universities to make them affordable again.

pdabbadabba 4y ago

I reluctantly agree--unless the forgiveness is coupled with new laws and regulations that substantially reform the system (perhaps by eliminating the federally subsidized student loan system altogether, and restoring the more generous grant system of yore). If we do nothing to change the system, what are new college applicants going to think? Either they'll have to pay back their loans and, compared to those who wend before, get totally screwed. Or borrow with the belief that the debt will eventually be forgiven. Neither are good. And, FWIW, I have a boat load of student-loan debt that I would absolutely love to have forgiven. But it's a bad idea unless the White House and congress are able to address the root of the problem.

nonethewiser 4y ago
> If we do nothing to change the system, what are new college applicants going to think? Either they'll have to pay back their loans and, compared to those who wend before, get totally screwed. EDIT: I misread your comment. Please disregard. They got screwed when they took the loan out, not when they pay it back. The terms never changed, people just realize they made a bad decision. Sometimes people argue they cant actually consent to the loan in which case we should just cease the loans immediately. Part of the puzzle is rebuking this sort of logic: "Education is important. Having a bachelors degree is practically required. Therefor a loan is worth it." Without any qualifiers. This suggests the degree job prospects and loan amount don't matter. They do. If education is expensive enough, it's just not worth it.

memish 4y ago

Student debt is mostly held by the richer half of the US population. Serious question: would it do more good if instead of giving money to people with student debt, you gave money to people without it? The first test of a potential policy is whether it's better than doing exactly the opposite. If you can't even prove that, it's probably not a good policy. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1521112550770946048 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1521112550770946048

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lapcat 4y ago
Income is not wealth. Especially when you factor in student loan debt! You can make a higher income than another person but still be poorer than them because of debt. Also, income can change a lot from year to year. My income certain has. If the economy goes to pot, suddenly a lot of people with higher income will become unemployed. And the years you spend in school are typically very low or no income, so you're not building any wealth during those years. And if you go to graduate school, it's even more years of low to no income.
- sevenf0ur 4y ago
  A college graduate will earn $900,000 more than a non-college graduate over their lifetime. > You can make a higher income than another person but still be poorer than them because of debt. Maybe we should focus our money on making college costs more affordable rather than forgiving loans and signaling to universities and students that it's safe to take on more debt?
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > A college graduate will earn $900,000 more than a non-college graduate over their lifetime. A male college graduate, on average. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education... "Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor's degrees earn $630,000 more. Men with graduate degrees earn $1.5 million more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with graduate degrees earn $1.1 million more." Of course these are just averages. There's no guarantee that any given person will earn even a penny more. Not to mention that not everyone who goes to college even finishes their degree, but they accumulate the debt regardless. > Maybe we should focus our money on making college costs more affordable rather than forgiving loans Why not both? The thing is, the people who make a lot of money after college are able to pay off their debt. The real problem is the people who get stuck with debt for decades, unable to pay it off. It's a lifetime burden. Senior citizens are a very fast growing group of student loan debtors. I don't necessarily believe that you should forgive student loan debt the minute someone walks out of graduation. But what about decades later? Anyway, it's important to remember that these lifetime earnings numbers don't include college costs. You have to subtract those. Unless your parents pay for your college, in which case you have no student loan debt.

lapcat 4y ago

> this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed This is a false dichotomy. The root core of the issue should be addressed. However, that would require an act of Congress, whereas federal student loan forgiveness can be accomplished immediately via executive action. This is why people are calling for it now, because it can be done right now. Also, the President promised to do so multiple times during his campaign. > Universities can charge more, and students can continue to take out larger loans Universities are already charging more, and students are continuing to take out larger loans despite the lack of forgiveness.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"However, that would require an act of Congress, whereas federal student loan forgiveness can be accomplished immediately via executive action. This is why people are calling for it now, because it can be done right now. Also, the President promised to do so multiple times during his campaign." I can't be the only one who feels like this is simply 'buying votes' in an attempt to try and salvage some seats for the upcoming midterms. And, of course the people with debt want the debt forgiven unilaterally and post-haste, so it makes sense they're clamoring for it. In a democracy, who turns down free money?
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I can't be the only one who feels like this is "buying votes". Votes are already bought by wealthy campaign contributors. Anyway, aren't politicians supposed to help the public financially? If a politician campaigns on tax cuts, tax credits, and tax incentives, isn't that also "buying votes"? Which politician is not buying votes with their stated economic policies?
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    I sense there is a difference between passing policy which broadly affects future actions (tax rates, credits, etc.) and making a campaign promise to directly pay (or in this case forgive) a lump sum of money to a certain contingent of the electorate.

drewcoo 4y ago

If we were dealing with the victims of a school shooting, first we'd make sure none of them were going to bleed out. Then they'd be prioritized for dealing with their root cause injuries. We can apply similar tactics to these school financial injuries. We don't need to choose one or the other. And the core problem with people taking on debt to pay for college in the US is individual people having to pay for college, unlike many other countries. How much it costs is a secondary issue. If it can cost anything, market forces will boost the price until it passes a fairness threshold.

Aunche 4y ago
Providing emergency aid to shooting victims doesn't incentivize more school shooters. If anything, it's a disincentive because it counteracts their goal. By contrast, forgiving student loans incentivizes more people to take loans, which in turn allows colleges to raise tuition prices.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> If we were dealing with the victims of a school shooting, first we'd make sure none of them were going to bleed out. Well... no. Obviously stopping the shooter is the top priority. Beyond that, it depends on how many people are there to solve the problem and how many victims there are. Everything beyond whats required to stop the shooter would attend to the wounded.

kansface 4y ago

Debt forgiveness is indeed an extreme, perverse incentive. Capping federal aid seems unthinkable. Asking something of all of those grads (service) on behalf of forgiving their debt also seems unthinkable. Forgiving college loans is a wealth transfer to the highest earning cohort... I'm not in favor of a debt jubilee.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. I mean, it should be an unpopular opinion that a claim that both misrepresents the basic processes and incentives involved and requires effect to precede cause by more than a decade is perceived as “exactly why we should“ do or not do anything, but unfortunately it's actually a very popular opinion in this case. (To the extent there is a real argument—and this one is not it—for federal student lending being a cost driver for education, that would be a good reason why debt forgiveness, if done, should be accompanied by lending reform to correct the problem going forward; of course, even without it being a cost driver, any argument for debt forgiveness is itself an argument for lending reform preventing the problem addressed by forgiveness from recurring.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]