6 ms·

> doesn't refusing to forgive loans entail refusing to help the students who suffered from tuition being too high? from the viewpoint i cite, the students you'

> doesn't refusing to forgive loans entail refusing to help the students who suffered from tuition being too high? from the viewpoint i cite, the students you're referring to were helped -- the loan programs were created with the express intent of helping those very students. if you claim these student weren't, in fact, helped, then that suggests this loan program is ineffectual. forgiving a loan (on a continuous basis*) has the same effect as increasing the size of these loans from the vantage point of the universities which receive student payments: students are willing to pay $c future servicing costs to attend school; the effective borrowing amount serviceable by $c increases; tuition increases to match (or rather, it in proportion -- roughly 50% per the article). so, does our current loan program benefit students? if "yes", then i fail to see the inequality: yesterday's students got high tuition cost but high loan benefits; tomorrow's students (in the framework where we focus on reducing tuition, without forgiveness) get discounted tuition but lesser loan benefits (on account of making less use of the federal loan program). if "no", then why would you want to expand the loan program at all? *it's unclear to what extent a one-time loan forgiveness will increase the amount of leverage universities have in raising tuition. however, the framework you present around fairness suggests that we offer this same loan forgiveness to all future generations of students, so the effect is similar.

lapcat 4y ago
"Help or no help" is a false dichotomy. Student loans do "help" students pay for school expenses that are too expensive. Which is exactly why there is more student loan debt now than ever before. It would be absurd to say that today's students are "helped more" than students 60 years ago when college was much more affordable, just because now there are more loans available. > tomorrow's students (in the framework where we focus on reducing tuition, without forgiveness) get discounted tuition but lesser loan benefits (on account of making less use of the federal loan program) lesser loan benefits... you mean, they don't have to borrow as much??? I think that anyone given a choice would be one of "tomorrow's students". It's not even a tradeoff, with pros and cons. Lower tuition is all pro, no con.
- colinsane 4y ago
  > I think that anyone given a choice would be one of "tomorrow's students". this is true more generally, though. if we're on a path of progress, then life is better for each successive generation. the previous generation should prefer to have been the future generation. so i'm not sure shaping the answer to this "would you prefer to be yesterday's student or tomorrow student" to be a 50/50 is the right way to guide policy, though that could be an interesting philosophical rabbit hole. > doesn't refusing to forgive loans entail refusing to help the students who suffered from tuition being too high? i was focusing on this point. we did help these students already -- that's what this federal loan program was trying to do. we invested some resources into creating and operating the program, and it led to some outcome. so what do we owe each generation? i would propose: we invest similar resources into the educational system during the next generation as we did the previous generation. if we do this right, that investment means better, cheaper education for the next generation. if we lower tuition and (in doing so) lower the loan benefits, that's akin to making a similar investment. yes, this means the next generation gets more effective "help" than the previous generation. but they don't necessarily get more investment. the costs are the same, but the outcomes are better. that's fair. that's progress.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > we did help these students already -- that's what this federal loan program was trying to do. we invested some resources into creating and operating the program, and it led to some outcome. Did we? I would say that we did a disservice to those students by raising tuition at a rate vastly more than inflation. The result of this disservice is that those students had to borrow more for college. I don't agree with painting that situation as "helping" them. Helping them would have meant keeping college affordable, rather than letting costs get out of control. Given that college costs rose, having more loans available is better than nothing. But again, "more loans or nothing" is a false dichotomy. You can be "helped" and screwed over at the same time. In fact, you might not have needed "help" at all unless you got screwed over first. > life is better for each successive generation It's not clear that this actually happened. Successive generations of college students are getting more and more debt for the same amount of education. Inflation is not progress, despite the fact that something (cost) has moved upward.

lapcat 4y ago

"Help or no help" is a false dichotomy. Student loans do "help" students pay for school expenses that are too expensive. Which is exactly why there is more student loan debt now than ever before. It would be absurd to say that today's students are "helped more" than students 60 years ago when college was much more affordable, just because now there are more loans available. > tomorrow's students (in the framework where we focus on reducing tuition, without forgiveness) get discounted tuition but lesser loan benefits (on account of making less use of the federal loan program) lesser loan benefits... you mean, they don't have to borrow as much??? I think that anyone given a choice would be one of "tomorrow's students". It's not even a tradeoff, with pros and cons. Lower tuition is all pro, no con.

colinsane 4y ago
> I think that anyone given a choice would be one of "tomorrow's students". this is true more generally, though. if we're on a path of progress, then life is better for each successive generation. the previous generation should prefer to have been the future generation. so i'm not sure shaping the answer to this "would you prefer to be yesterday's student or tomorrow student" to be a 50/50 is the right way to guide policy, though that could be an interesting philosophical rabbit hole. > doesn't refusing to forgive loans entail refusing to help the students who suffered from tuition being too high? i was focusing on this point. we did help these students already -- that's what this federal loan program was trying to do. we invested some resources into creating and operating the program, and it led to some outcome. so what do we owe each generation? i would propose: we invest similar resources into the educational system during the next generation as we did the previous generation. if we do this right, that investment means better, cheaper education for the next generation. if we lower tuition and (in doing so) lower the loan benefits, that's akin to making a similar investment. yes, this means the next generation gets more effective "help" than the previous generation. but they don't necessarily get more investment. the costs are the same, but the outcomes are better. that's fair. that's progress.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > we did help these students already -- that's what this federal loan program was trying to do. we invested some resources into creating and operating the program, and it led to some outcome. Did we? I would say that we did a disservice to those students by raising tuition at a rate vastly more than inflation. The result of this disservice is that those students had to borrow more for college. I don't agree with painting that situation as "helping" them. Helping them would have meant keeping college affordable, rather than letting costs get out of control. Given that college costs rose, having more loans available is better than nothing. But again, "more loans or nothing" is a false dichotomy. You can be "helped" and screwed over at the same time. In fact, you might not have needed "help" at all unless you got screwed over first. > life is better for each successive generation It's not clear that this actually happened. Successive generations of college students are getting more and more debt for the same amount of education. Inflation is not progress, despite the fact that something (cost) has moved upward.