4 ms·

I chose to become a self-taught developer, vs going to school, to avoid having student loans plague me. I weighed the options and didn't like the math. The two

by qup 3y ago

I chose to become a self-taught developer, vs going to school, to avoid having student loans plague me. I weighed the options and didn't like the math. The two paths were hard forks. It was a big decision. I'm still "paying" the price in the form of reduced wages, surely. Student loans weren't a great option, so I didn't take them. Why does everyone else take them, and then pass the blame and responsibility to the government?

fullstop 3y ago
Do you feel the same way about disaster relief, since you chose not to live that area? I haven't had student loans since the early 2000s and I'm fine with forgiving them or at least reducing interest rates to something very low.
- qup 3y ago
  Yes, I do. I lived in an active hurricane zone for most of my life, fwiw, and half my family just got screwed in 2022. They've all variously moved away and come back. Hurricanes are a price you pay for coastal views. If I could put a beach in the landlocked state I live in now, it would probably generate incredible value. I haven't taken a position on loan forgiveness, I've only taken a position on people blaming others for their own choices.
  - fullstop 3y ago
    There's more than hurricanes, though. What of forest fires, floods, and tornadoes? You can't fault people for living within proximity of trees, rivers, and flat areas.
    - qup 3y ago
      Okay, how about California's forest fires? They've been in the news. I'm seeing a lot of fault being passed around like "hey, we should have been doing prescribed burns for hundreds of years". We've had lots and lots of forest fires. I won't be moving my family into the California wilderness. But I do live in a wild place, and a fire is a possibility. I pay for insurance to cover that, so I believe I'm footing my own bill as far as my own personal involvement. I wouldn't expect to receive a dime from anyone else; I never did during a hurricane.
      - fullstop 3y ago
        > I wouldn't expect to receive a dime from anyone else; I never did during a hurricane. You did, though, indirectly. Federal funds were used in lieu of state funds (your taxes). In essence, I paid for some of your cleanup. I agree that you didn't receive a personal check from the federal government, but you did benefit from their action. Even your insurance is done with this method -- you pay an insurance premium which is far less than what would be paid out in the event that your house burned to the ground. If we're using the same insurance company, my premiums go toward that as well.
        qup 3y ago
        Okay, but does that come back around and lead you to believe that's the same as paying back loans that individuals took of their own volition? I walked into your trap, you got me--my region received hurricane funds. So now we should pay Chad's student loan back even though Chad said he'd do that himself? Huh?
        fullstop 3y ago
        I'm saying that it's hypocritical to tolerate federal assistance in one case but not in another. I live in a safe area, away from forest fires, tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes, but I'm okay with sending federal aid to other states as a cost of living in a society. On the other hand, we have a lot of people, about 20% of borrowers, who are in default and in dire financial situations. They will likely end up homeless or destitute, which has obvious negative impact to the community. For these people, forgiveness would be life changing. If you look into the program, it wasn't going to forgive 100% of the loans, but rather a smaller amount and it was income limited. Does it really hurt you because someone else is helped? I certainly didn't feel hurt when my tax dollars went toward your hurricane damage. I'm saying this as someone who saved for my children's education, and started doing so years before they were born.
        qup 3y ago
        I never claimed to be hurt. I do not feel hurt when someone else is helped. I still don't think that absolves people of the responsibility they put upon themselves. You're totally ignoring that part of the argument, and it's really my only argument. And clearly we need to pick and choose where to spend our money; we can't aid every cause. That doesn't make everyone a hypocrite. I don't think you've even made a case that I am one; your alternative idea of "federal assistance to the state of Florida" doesn't really compare well to "helping individuals repay loans they directly benefit from"; it's not at all the same class of spending. Anyway no, people who are against this very specific form of federal aid are not hypocrites if they support some other very specific form of federal aid. That is not a logical conclusion.
NeuNeurosis 3y ago
Because the math you were forced to do was caused by very specific policy decisions at the government level that radically changed how schools were publicly funded directly(lower costs to all students) to one where it is "public funding" but private risk by student loans that drove up perverse incentives to bloat school bureaucracy and lower the educational standards and raise costs. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year While you were in a position to make a certain career decision due to the field you wanted to go into (tech), other field require schooling. For example medicine doesn't have on the job training that allows one to be a nurse, radiology tech, respiratory tech, dr, surgeon and so forth. Do you want there to be even less of those people? What about accountants? What about engineers? Should they just "teach themselves". The idea was that all these roles are publicly beneficial and we used to recognize that. The "Policy" of student loans was a government decision and directly created this problem and it is what needs to change to solve it.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  I don't think the people that took out degrees leading into medicine, law, accounting, or tech are the ones struggling to repay their loans. The people struggling to repay their loans are those that have degrees with little or no economic value. The main criticism from blue-collared voters on student loan forgiveness is the moral hazard of allowing students to take out loans for degrees with virtually no economic value. Of course, this criticism was completely ignored by the college educated elite whom refuse to entertain the idea a degree needs to have a measurable ROI. There are many other factors that play into this, but this is the crux of the matter.
  - NeuNeurosis 3y ago
    Interesting that the top major of student loan holders is Nursing https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-major https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-major Also student loans and the funding of education and the artificial scarcity and perverse incentives that it produces is one of the direct causes of the shortage of medical professionals of all stripes in the US. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/lawmakers-fixes-healthcare-workforce-shortages/642994/ https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/lawmakers-fixes-healthca... As the OP that I responded to argued, the risk of loans prevented him from pursuing a degree. That risk most definitely plays apart in prospective medical students deciding to enter the field because if they fail at any point in that journey they are directly responsible for a ungodly huge sum of money. Also the moral hazard argument is a red herring to rage bait the blue collar segment of the population and disregards the breadth of actual majors of student loan holders. And secondly it still does nothing to address the actual government policy decision that gave rise to this problem. The policy of student loan (public and individual student risk) vs direct public funding (public and institutional risk).
soderfoo 3y ago
Government policy, however well intentioned, created this system of incentives to encourage and boost college enrollment. Further exacerbating the problem are special intrest groups (lenders and schools) who salivated at the thought of a blank check from the feds. I think it's silly to view this in a way that generates ill feelings for folks who pursued education. The blame falls on the government, lenders and schools. They should bear the cost of any forgiveness.

by qup 3y ago

fullstop 3y ago

Do you feel the same way about disaster relief, since you chose not to live that area? I haven't had student loans since the early 2000s and I'm fine with forgiving them or at least reducing interest rates to something very low.

qup 3y ago
Yes, I do. I lived in an active hurricane zone for most of my life, fwiw, and half my family just got screwed in 2022. They've all variously moved away and come back. Hurricanes are a price you pay for coastal views. If I could put a beach in the landlocked state I live in now, it would probably generate incredible value. I haven't taken a position on loan forgiveness, I've only taken a position on people blaming others for their own choices.
- fullstop 3y ago
  There's more than hurricanes, though. What of forest fires, floods, and tornadoes? You can't fault people for living within proximity of trees, rivers, and flat areas.
  - qup 3y ago
    Okay, how about California's forest fires? They've been in the news. I'm seeing a lot of fault being passed around like "hey, we should have been doing prescribed burns for hundreds of years". We've had lots and lots of forest fires. I won't be moving my family into the California wilderness. But I do live in a wild place, and a fire is a possibility. I pay for insurance to cover that, so I believe I'm footing my own bill as far as my own personal involvement. I wouldn't expect to receive a dime from anyone else; I never did during a hurricane.
    - fullstop 3y ago
      > I wouldn't expect to receive a dime from anyone else; I never did during a hurricane. You did, though, indirectly. Federal funds were used in lieu of state funds (your taxes). In essence, I paid for some of your cleanup. I agree that you didn't receive a personal check from the federal government, but you did benefit from their action. Even your insurance is done with this method -- you pay an insurance premium which is far less than what would be paid out in the event that your house burned to the ground. If we're using the same insurance company, my premiums go toward that as well.
      - qup 3y ago
        Okay, but does that come back around and lead you to believe that's the same as paying back loans that individuals took of their own volition? I walked into your trap, you got me--my region received hurricane funds. So now we should pay Chad's student loan back even though Chad said he'd do that himself? Huh?
        fullstop 3y ago
        I'm saying that it's hypocritical to tolerate federal assistance in one case but not in another. I live in a safe area, away from forest fires, tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes, but I'm okay with sending federal aid to other states as a cost of living in a society. On the other hand, we have a lot of people, about 20% of borrowers, who are in default and in dire financial situations. They will likely end up homeless or destitute, which has obvious negative impact to the community. For these people, forgiveness would be life changing. If you look into the program, it wasn't going to forgive 100% of the loans, but rather a smaller amount and it was income limited. Does it really hurt you because someone else is helped? I certainly didn't feel hurt when my tax dollars went toward your hurricane damage. I'm saying this as someone who saved for my children's education, and started doing so years before they were born.
        qup 3y ago
        I never claimed to be hurt. I do not feel hurt when someone else is helped. I still don't think that absolves people of the responsibility they put upon themselves. You're totally ignoring that part of the argument, and it's really my only argument. And clearly we need to pick and choose where to spend our money; we can't aid every cause. That doesn't make everyone a hypocrite. I don't think you've even made a case that I am one; your alternative idea of "federal assistance to the state of Florida" doesn't really compare well to "helping individuals repay loans they directly benefit from"; it's not at all the same class of spending. Anyway no, people who are against this very specific form of federal aid are not hypocrites if they support some other very specific form of federal aid. That is not a logical conclusion.

NeuNeurosis 3y ago

Because the math you were forced to do was caused by very specific policy decisions at the government level that radically changed how schools were publicly funded directly(lower costs to all students) to one where it is "public funding" but private risk by student loans that drove up perverse incentives to bloat school bureaucracy and lower the educational standards and raise costs. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year While you were in a position to make a certain career decision due to the field you wanted to go into (tech), other field require schooling. For example medicine doesn't have on the job training that allows one to be a nurse, radiology tech, respiratory tech, dr, surgeon and so forth. Do you want there to be even less of those people? What about accountants? What about engineers? Should they just "teach themselves". The idea was that all these roles are publicly beneficial and we used to recognize that. The "Policy" of student loans was a government decision and directly created this problem and it is what needs to change to solve it.

infamouscow 3y ago
I don't think the people that took out degrees leading into medicine, law, accounting, or tech are the ones struggling to repay their loans. The people struggling to repay their loans are those that have degrees with little or no economic value. The main criticism from blue-collared voters on student loan forgiveness is the moral hazard of allowing students to take out loans for degrees with virtually no economic value. Of course, this criticism was completely ignored by the college educated elite whom refuse to entertain the idea a degree needs to have a measurable ROI. There are many other factors that play into this, but this is the crux of the matter.
- NeuNeurosis 3y ago
  Interesting that the top major of student loan holders is Nursing https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-major https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-major Also student loans and the funding of education and the artificial scarcity and perverse incentives that it produces is one of the direct causes of the shortage of medical professionals of all stripes in the US. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/lawmakers-fixes-healthcare-workforce-shortages/642994/ https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/lawmakers-fixes-healthca... As the OP that I responded to argued, the risk of loans prevented him from pursuing a degree. That risk most definitely plays apart in prospective medical students deciding to enter the field because if they fail at any point in that journey they are directly responsible for a ungodly huge sum of money. Also the moral hazard argument is a red herring to rage bait the blue collar segment of the population and disregards the breadth of actual majors of student loan holders. And secondly it still does nothing to address the actual government policy decision that gave rise to this problem. The policy of student loan (public and individual student risk) vs direct public funding (public and institutional risk).

soderfoo 3y ago

Government policy, however well intentioned, created this system of incentives to encourage and boost college enrollment. Further exacerbating the problem are special intrest groups (lenders and schools) who salivated at the thought of a blank check from the feds. I think it's silly to view this in a way that generates ill feelings for folks who pursued education. The blame falls on the government, lenders and schools. They should bear the cost of any forgiveness.