8 ms·

The problem with allowing student debt to rack up to these levels and then cancelling it is that it would embolden universities to ask even higher tuition. A se

The problem with allowing student debt to rack up to these levels and then cancelling it is that it would embolden universities to ask even higher tuition. A second problem is that not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. It would be unfair to them.

jimkleiber 2y ago
Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. And there could be a change in the law that allows people to forgive student debt in personal bankruptcy, and that could make sure higher tuition doesnt happen.
- greentxt 2y ago
  It would do more good in K12 or pre-K than it would paying off private debts held by white collar highly educated not rich yet due only to their young age university-bros.
  - ajmurmann 2y ago
    It truly is astonishing. We have kids who cannot afford school lunches, people working multiple blue-collar jobs and yet the problems of people who are statistically better off than average constantly jump to the front. People complain about Effective Altruism because of one dude messing up big but it would behoove everyone to read up on the basic philosophy of it before suggesting how we best spent billions to help reduce suffering.
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      The problem with EA is in judging what is effective. Perhaps ridding the unforgivable student loans of parents actually helps the kids more than school lunches. And frankly, some of the most effective altruism may be just to directly give cash to people, yet I don't know how many people in the EA community would trust people so much with unconditional cash.
      - currymj 2y ago
        there are many many problems with the EA movement, but they do generally support unconditional cash transfers. cash transfers are seen as the "default" baseline. the bar for charity is that it must be better than cash transfers. they do find some such charities that they claim are even better than cash transfers, but they are totally comfortable with giving people unconditional cash.
        jimkleiber 2y ago
        ah ok, i appreciate the clarification and am grateful to hear that. I think I've worried that the EA movement often has an obsession with optimization, which can lead to getting the absolute best perfect solution and become really dehumanized in the process. But as I said, I'm glad to hear that unconditional cash is gaining traction with those folks, as I think it not only gives someone financial resources but also trust. > And this trust — another resource it’s difficult to measure — is the aspect of gifts that many have said they value most. The above is an excerpt from MacKenzie Scott's essay, "No Dollar Signs This Time." [0] I really appreciate the approach she is taking, which seems to be especially embracing the uncertainty of it all and trusting people to do what they believe is best. [0]: https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time
    - freejazz 2y ago
      People complain about effective altruism because they just talk about mosquito nets instead of anything like this. Also, who is the person that "screwed up big"? I'm guessing you mean SBF but my view is that MacAskill is an outright shuckster.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    I'd say many of these university bros are actually parents to K12 and Pre-K and having parents not terribly in debt could help them focus more on being there for their kids and encouraging education.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. I don't think that holds for a policy of non-intervention. People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    Apathy is the only fair policy?
    - nwienert 2y ago
      I am a bit apathetic towards giving generally wealthier people who made a bad financial choice a break, when weighed against all the different ways you could spend that money, yes.
      - jimkleiber 2y ago
        > People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. If you're saying all the different ways you could spend that money, then you're saying non-intervention for the wealthier people how made a bad financial choice, and yes-intervention for other ways in which the money could be spent, which again, is a decision on where to give limited resources. I'm not saying I agree or don't agree with whether it would be more helpful to give it to those who have college debt or those in the US who are without a home or frankly those here in Kenya (where I am now) who if don't have money, might starve to death. Moreover that each decision can be judged. > Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not. If we approach it from this side, I agree. Non-intervention, or not giving any limited resources to anyone, is the most fair approach and then we can evaluate whether it's fair the position in which those people are. Yet I don't know how realistic this is, to withhold all resources from everyone.
Twirrim 2y ago
If we block on the basis that previous people didn't have something and that it would be unfair to them we would literally never make any progress in this world. Instead of starting a new better world, we'll just stick with the old one that sucks because we don't want to be unfair. What an awful, awful way to look at the world.
aylmao 2y ago
With half a trillion dollars you can also open a lot of universities. Increased supply would lower prices for everyone. One could even open public universities and offer education at very reduced or no tuition.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  Lack of supply is not the reason post secondary education is expensive.
  - aylmao 2y ago
    Source? If you're curious cost as it relates to supply and demand of higher education, here's one [1]. [1] https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/con_042986.pdf https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documen...
- _uxvx 2y ago
  There are very many universities with zero or no tax, most of them in socialist countries. Why don't you go there? Maybe because none of those matter when serious education is considered.
  - aylmao 2y ago
    The world keeps showing the USA things can be better, but some of you really are entrenched deep in American hubris
    - vtashkov 2y ago
      I am actually European :)
bun_at_work 2y ago
> not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. I'm one of the people who paid off a large portion of debt and probably don't need this assistance. However, this argument is so offensive. People were encouraged to take out debt for a number of reasons, and by a number of institutions, without first being educated about the implications of that. This argument states that we shouldn't help people because other people didn't have help. Following this logic, we shouldn't seek to help anyone ever, unless everyone else has also received the exact same help. - slaves shouldn't be freed because other slaves weren't freed - we shouldn't give food to the starving, because those not starving aren't getting free food - we shouldn't care about others because they don't care about me These arguments are all the greedy option in game theory, and all contribute to the worst outcomes across the board, except for those who can scam others in this system. The right way to think about programs that help others is to consider cooperating - some people don't get the maximum possible, but they do get some! And when the game is played over and over, all parties get the maximum benefit possible. In the case of student debt, paying it off and fixing the broken system, by allowing bankruptcy or some other fix, would benefit far more people than it would hurt; it would also benefit some people who paid their loans off completely: parents of children who can't pay off their loans now. In the end the argument that some already paid off their debts is inherently a selfish argument in the style of "I don't want them to get help because I didn't get help." Society would be better if we didn't think in such greedy terms. All that said - there are real concerns about debt repayment. The point about emboldening universities to ask for higher tuition highlights the underlying issue with the student loan system. Why bring up the most selfish possible argument when there are valid, useful arguments for your position?
- Fidelix 2y ago
  Consider that his position might be more profound than you considered it to be. Mine is. It's about incentives. Now you can take it from there, and at least in my interpretation the rest of your rebuttal falls apart. There is absolutely no equivalency to slavery. That is simply dishonest. Slaves didn't choose to be slaves. Do students who take on debt have no agency whatsoever to you? Did the people who paid such debts had no agency when paying?
thfuran 2y ago
Only the first of those is a real problem, but it really is a problem.
_aavaa_ 2y ago
When the bailout is for business the money always comes, but suggest even a fraction of that amount of money go towards regular people and all of a sudden there's hand wringing and talk of moral hazards. > it would embolden universities to ask even higher tuition. Then cap the amount you give out loans. Many of them are back by one level of the government or another. > A second problem is that not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. It would be unfair to them. This is a very flimsy argument. Shall we get rid of the polio vaccine since it's unfair to those who already contracted it that our efforts with the vaccine don't benefit them?
datavirtue 2y ago
Simple ten years of tax deductions for paid student loans. Fixed it.

jimkleiber 2y ago

Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. And there could be a change in the law that allows people to forgive student debt in personal bankruptcy, and that could make sure higher tuition doesnt happen.

greentxt 2y ago
It would do more good in K12 or pre-K than it would paying off private debts held by white collar highly educated not rich yet due only to their young age university-bros.
- ajmurmann 2y ago
  It truly is astonishing. We have kids who cannot afford school lunches, people working multiple blue-collar jobs and yet the problems of people who are statistically better off than average constantly jump to the front. People complain about Effective Altruism because of one dude messing up big but it would behoove everyone to read up on the basic philosophy of it before suggesting how we best spent billions to help reduce suffering.
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    The problem with EA is in judging what is effective. Perhaps ridding the unforgivable student loans of parents actually helps the kids more than school lunches. And frankly, some of the most effective altruism may be just to directly give cash to people, yet I don't know how many people in the EA community would trust people so much with unconditional cash.
    - currymj 2y ago
      there are many many problems with the EA movement, but they do generally support unconditional cash transfers. cash transfers are seen as the "default" baseline. the bar for charity is that it must be better than cash transfers. they do find some such charities that they claim are even better than cash transfers, but they are totally comfortable with giving people unconditional cash.
      - jimkleiber 2y ago
        ah ok, i appreciate the clarification and am grateful to hear that. I think I've worried that the EA movement often has an obsession with optimization, which can lead to getting the absolute best perfect solution and become really dehumanized in the process. But as I said, I'm glad to hear that unconditional cash is gaining traction with those folks, as I think it not only gives someone financial resources but also trust. > And this trust — another resource it’s difficult to measure — is the aspect of gifts that many have said they value most. The above is an excerpt from MacKenzie Scott's essay, "No Dollar Signs This Time." [0] I really appreciate the approach she is taking, which seems to be especially embracing the uncertainty of it all and trusting people to do what they believe is best. [0]: https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time https://yieldgiving.com/essays/no-dollar-signs-this-time
  - freejazz 2y ago
    People complain about effective altruism because they just talk about mosquito nets instead of anything like this. Also, who is the person that "screwed up big"? I'm guessing you mean SBF but my view is that MacAskill is an outright shuckster.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  I'd say many of these university bros are actually parents to K12 and Pre-K and having parents not terribly in debt could help them focus more on being there for their kids and encouraging education.
_heimdall 2y ago
> Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair. I don't think that holds for a policy of non-intervention. People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Apathy is the only fair policy?
  - nwienert 2y ago
    I am a bit apathetic towards giving generally wealthier people who made a bad financial choice a break, when weighed against all the different ways you could spend that money, yes.
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      > People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly. If you're saying all the different ways you could spend that money, then you're saying non-intervention for the wealthier people how made a bad financial choice, and yes-intervention for other ways in which the money could be spent, which again, is a decision on where to give limited resources. I'm not saying I agree or don't agree with whether it would be more helpful to give it to those who have college debt or those in the US who are without a home or frankly those here in Kenya (where I am now) who if don't have money, might starve to death. Moreover that each decision can be judged. > Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not. If we approach it from this side, I agree. Non-intervention, or not giving any limited resources to anyone, is the most fair approach and then we can evaluate whether it's fair the position in which those people are. Yet I don't know how realistic this is, to withhold all resources from everyone.

Twirrim 2y ago

If we block on the basis that previous people didn't have something and that it would be unfair to them we would literally never make any progress in this world. Instead of starting a new better world, we'll just stick with the old one that sucks because we don't want to be unfair. What an awful, awful way to look at the world.

aylmao 2y ago

With half a trillion dollars you can also open a lot of universities. Increased supply would lower prices for everyone. One could even open public universities and offer education at very reduced or no tuition.

itsoktocry 2y ago
Lack of supply is not the reason post secondary education is expensive.
- aylmao 2y ago
  Source? If you're curious cost as it relates to supply and demand of higher education, here's one [1]. [1] https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/con_042986.pdf https://www.stern.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documen...
_uxvx 2y ago
There are very many universities with zero or no tax, most of them in socialist countries. Why don't you go there? Maybe because none of those matter when serious education is considered.
- aylmao 2y ago
  The world keeps showing the USA things can be better, but some of you really are entrenched deep in American hubris
  - vtashkov 2y ago
    I am actually European :)

bun_at_work 2y ago

> not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. I'm one of the people who paid off a large portion of debt and probably don't need this assistance. However, this argument is so offensive. People were encouraged to take out debt for a number of reasons, and by a number of institutions, without first being educated about the implications of that. This argument states that we shouldn't help people because other people didn't have help. Following this logic, we shouldn't seek to help anyone ever, unless everyone else has also received the exact same help. - slaves shouldn't be freed because other slaves weren't freed - we shouldn't give food to the starving, because those not starving aren't getting free food - we shouldn't care about others because they don't care about me These arguments are all the greedy option in game theory, and all contribute to the worst outcomes across the board, except for those who can scam others in this system. The right way to think about programs that help others is to consider cooperating - some people don't get the maximum possible, but they do get some! And when the game is played over and over, all parties get the maximum benefit possible. In the case of student debt, paying it off and fixing the broken system, by allowing bankruptcy or some other fix, would benefit far more people than it would hurt; it would also benefit some people who paid their loans off completely: parents of children who can't pay off their loans now. In the end the argument that some already paid off their debts is inherently a selfish argument in the style of "I don't want them to get help because I didn't get help." Society would be better if we didn't think in such greedy terms. All that said - there are real concerns about debt repayment. The point about emboldening universities to ask for higher tuition highlights the underlying issue with the student loan system. Why bring up the most selfish possible argument when there are valid, useful arguments for your position?

Fidelix 2y ago
Consider that his position might be more profound than you considered it to be. Mine is. It's about incentives. Now you can take it from there, and at least in my interpretation the rest of your rebuttal falls apart. There is absolutely no equivalency to slavery. That is simply dishonest. Slaves didn't choose to be slaves. Do students who take on debt have no agency whatsoever to you? Did the people who paid such debts had no agency when paying?

thfuran 2y ago

Only the first of those is a real problem, but it really is a problem.

_aavaa_ 2y ago

When the bailout is for business the money always comes, but suggest even a fraction of that amount of money go towards regular people and all of a sudden there's hand wringing and talk of moral hazards. > it would embolden universities to ask even higher tuition. Then cap the amount you give out loans. Many of them are back by one level of the government or another. > A second problem is that not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. It would be unfair to them. This is a very flimsy argument. Shall we get rid of the polio vaccine since it's unfair to those who already contracted it that our efforts with the vaccine don't benefit them?

datavirtue 2y ago

Simple ten years of tax deductions for paid student loans. Fixed it.