[rooster]

I'd argue that the government's attempts to "fix" college costs with low interest student loans are actually what drove the costs so ludicrously high in the first place. The ability of students to take out massive loans when they have little concept of the value of money is causing universities to get away with overspending. It's much the same reason that the stimulus money given to individuals and businesses drove inflation sky-high. If you give out what amounts to free money to 18 year olds, then businesses will exist to take it.

Yep, I agree.

Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down.

Or we just regulate shit more. Force price caps. Same goes for hospitals that want to charge you $60 for one ibuprofen pill. People will overcharge for as long as they can get away with it.

[Rushy]

Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down.

Or we just regulate shit more. Force price caps. Same goes for hospitals that want to charge you $60 for one ibuprofen pill. People will overcharge for as long as they can get away with it.

As far as I understand it, there has never been a single point in history in which a price cap on something worked out in anyone's favor.

[rooster]

As far as I understand it, there has never been a single point in history in which a price cap on something worked out in anyone's favor.

Ok well you can try to have an imagination and maybe agree that things need to be regulated more. Or just say you think things are going great now and we should continue on without trying to improve anything.

Also, "Economists do know, however, that price controls can be theoretically beneficial when imposed appropriately on a monopolist or monopsonist, and they do tend to work better in imperfectly competitive markets."
https://www.stlouisfed.org/en/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books#authorbox

A price cap on insulin, for example, was extremely necessary btw and the government finally realized that.

If universities don't fall into that category then fine. Let's just all continue to spend ~120,000 for a degree or whatever it is now. Young adults definitely deserve to enter into the work force with that level of debt in order to get a job that pays maybe $20 an hour.

[Tom Bishop]

It was always possible for young people to get an expensive degree in Paleolithic History or whatever passion topic they want to study and then subsequently find that they have a tough time getting a job with it.

I don't see why free handouts are required. Those graduates should just accept that they didn't pursue the degree to make money and did it solely for personal interest. If the goal was to make money, then they already knew what they needed to study, and will simply have to start again. Of course, it probably would have been a lot easier if they had pursued a money-making career first and their passion degree second once they had a good income stream coming in, or did some sort of double major or major/minor, but life is full of learning lessons.

$120K is still a fraction of the cost of a house, and isn't that radical of a debt to carry around in comparison. Even if it can't make you much money, the degree is a designer handbag representing your #1 passion in life. So yes, you should pay for what you purchased. The people advocating debt forgiveness want to something for nothing.

[rooster]

It was always possible for young people to get an expensive degree in Paleolithic History or whatever passion topic they want to study and then subsequently find that they have a tough time getting a job with it.

I don't see why free handouts are required. Those graduates should just accept that they didn't pursue the degree to make money and did it solely for personal interest. If the goal was to make money, then they already knew what they needed to study, and will simply have to start again. Of course, it probably would have been a lot easier if they had pursued a money-making career first and their passion degree second once they had a good income stream coming in, but life is full of learning lessons.

All of this is a bullshit empty argument and I know you know it. Maybe one day we can grow beyond the stupid af Republican talking points.

Every job should pay a liveable wage. If it can't afford to do so then it shouldn't be a job. No one here is demanding free handouts (reminder that the student loan forgiveness plan would not have covered the full debt of going to a 4 year university), just reasonably priced education since degrees are almost always required for any entry level position.

Many people can't even afford to buy houses anymore so maybe let's stop making that comparison because I can't see how that helps the argument.

[Rushy]

Ok well you can try to have an imagination and maybe agree that things need to be regulated more. Or just say you think things are going great now and we should continue on without trying to improve anything.

Also, "Economists do know, however, that price controls can be theoretically beneficial when imposed appropriately on a monopolist or monopsonist, and they do tend to work better in imperfectly competitive markets."
https://www.stlouisfed.org/en/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books#authorbox

A price cap on insulin, for example, was extremely necessary btw and the government finally realized that.

If universities don't fall into that category then fine. Let's just all continue to spend ~120,000 for a degree or whatever it is now. Young adults definitely deserve to enter into the work force with that level of debt in order to get a job that pays maybe $20 an hour.

No, I don't think price capping universities will work, but to that point I don't understand enough about economics to say if they will or won't. Further, if you want serious discussion about solutions to the problem, you'll have to start reading reports from analysts. No one here, including you, is qualified to have a deep and thoughtful discussion about how to "fix" the financial considerations of universities, aside from the general notion that some of us believe it costs "too much".


Further, I would like to make the point that no one is required to get a degree, which is why coincidentally, most people on the planet don't have one. It is purely an optional cost with risks associated with it, just like purchasing anything else. You can make the point that subsidizing education is generally good for the country and economy, but I think this varies by major considerably.

Many people can't even afford to buy houses anymore so maybe let's stop making that comparison because I can't see how that helps the argument.

We're making that comparison because about 40% of Americans have mortgage debt. About 20% have student loan debt. Does it not make more sense to subsidize Americans trying to pay for homes than for education, if your argument is based on affordability?

Fundamentally, if you have a bunch of money to hand out to people, handing it out only to people with student loans should be a low priority. There are plenty of Americans that have greater need of that money than those who took out student loans. If we're worried about people paying off their debts, it should be a broad "pay off your debts" program based on the person's situation at the time. Slinging out free money for specific kinds of debt is not a solution.

[rooster]

Further, I would like to make the point that no one is required to get a degree, which is why coincidentally, most people on the planet don't have one.

But more than half of Americans do have one. No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job."

We're making that comparison because about 40% of Americans have mortgage debt. About 20% have student loan debt. Does it not make more sense to subsidize Americans trying to pay for homes than for education, if your argument is based on affordability?

But it's not just affordability. I would argue that it's more necessary to get a college degree in this country then it is to buy a home as without a college degree you will likely not earn enough to ever be able to afford a home anyway.

Also, more than half of American households have two incomes so generally the burden is shared at least. And there is definitely a difference between starting your adult life in debt and choosing to go into debt because you decided you can buy a home later in your adult life.

And if you say again that you can choose to not get a degree, you are technically correct but I'd refer you back to my first point: No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job." So damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If we're worried about people paying off their debts, it should be a broad "pay off your debts" program based on the person's situation at the time. Slinging out free money for specific kinds of debt is not a solution.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Also, why are we "slinging out free money"? You had to qualify for Biden's student loan forgiveness program: You must earn less than $125,000 a year for individuals, or $250,000 for married couples and/or head of households.

Young adults who are debt free contribute more to the economy and would probably be more likely to start a family. But yeah, I'm also all for a general debt forgiveness program. It'd be more of a bandaid then solving any issue but as you pointed out, no one here is qualified or capable of fixing the situation. Shit just sucks.

[Tom Bishop]

These people signed the loans as adults and must face the consequences of their decisions. If you are going to spend $120K on anything you had better have a good plan on getting the money back, and should have done the research to see what was possible on the return on investment for what you want to do.

It is also possible to make poor business decisions and acquire a lot of business debt. When your business fails the fault falls with you and no one else. You should have done a better job with research, product development, and advertising that is suitable for the current market. These students made the equivalent of a bad business decision and in many cases signed loans that can't be cleared with bankruptcy.

It's one thing if a freak accident caused you to acquire hospital debt that was not your fault, but this was all their fault from the start. You should be responsible for your poor decisions.

[rooster]

These people signed the loans as adults and must face the consequences of their decisions. If you are going to spend $120K on anything you had better have a good plan on getting the money back, and should have done the research to see what was possible on the return on investment for what you want to do.

It is also possible to make poor business decisions and acquire a lot of business debt. When your business fails the fault falls with you and no one else. You should have done a better job with research, product development, and advertising that is suitable for the current market. These students made the equivalent of a bad business decision and in many cases signed loans that can't be cleared with bankruptcy.

It's one thing if a freak accident caused you to acquire hospital debt that was not your fault, but this was all their fault from the start. You should be responsible for your poor decisions.

You're right, buddy. Expensive degrees required for low paying jobs is the fault of the students. America is working great, we're definitely not taking advantage of the masses to line pockets. 👍

[Roundy]

Let's face it: the problem is capitalism, full stop. We gave it a go, and it's obliterated the middle and working classes, while making some people so rich they could never spend their fortunes in twenty lifetimes. It's time to seriously overhaul the system.

[Tom Bishop]

Oddly, if you had asked many of these people as they were studying about the financial fortunes their degree would bring, they would have told you that they knew full well that they would be living in poverty. They weren't even tricked or fooled. They wanted to do this. They didn't do it for money, and would have done things differently if the goal was money.

They specifically and knowingly made a choice to live in poverty for the rest of their lives, so why should anyone stand in the way of that?

If you wave your money wand and make a field like teaching a profitable field to go into then it would be overrun with corporate charter schools and third world teachers, flooded by corps and foreginers, like an educational version of IT industry and suddenly become uncool. In such an overrun industry with plentiful education and plentiful teachers young adults would surely then instead be going into environmental cleanup or some alternative where they feel they can contribute the most to society, still choosing poverty over profit.

It is a psychological problem, most of all. Running a store or going into business is helping a community in many ways, but is uncool and untrendy among young liberal adults because it is mainstream profitable.

[Action80]

Let's face it: the problem is capitalism, full stop. We gave it a go, and it's obliterated the middle and working classes, while making some people so rich they could never spend their fortunes in twenty lifetimes. It's time to seriously overhaul the system.

Pinning the blame on a non-existent system is not very helpful, but par for the course based on your post history.

Carry on, my wayward son. There'll be peace when you are done.

[Lord Dave]

Oddly, if you had asked many of these people as they were studying about the financial fortunes their degree would bring, they would have told you that they knew full well that they would be living in poverty. They weren't even tricked or fooled. They wanted to do this. They didn't do it for money, and would have done things differently if the goal was money.

They specifically and knowingly made a choice to live in poverty for the rest of their lives, so why should anyone stand in the way of that?

If you wave your money wand and make a field like teaching a profitable field to go into then it would be overrun with corporate charter schools and third world teachers, flooded by corps and foreginers, like an educational version of IT industry and suddenly become uncool. In such an overrun industry with plentiful education and plentiful teachers young adults would surely then instead be going into environmental cleanup or some alternative where they feel they can contribute the most to society, still choosing poverty over profit.

It is a psychological problem, most of all. Running a store or going into business is helping a community in many ways, but is uncool and untrendy among young liberal adults because it is mainstream profitable.

Remind us again, Tom... Which field did you go into?

[Rushy]

But more than half of Americans do have one. No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job."

The idea that no degree automatically means "low income job" is simply not true. There is some mild correlation with having a degree and making more money, but as I said before, this greatly depends on the degree. You also have high income degrees like medical doctors causing the average to skew over degrees that typically don't result in any improved career prospects.

But it's not just affordability. I would argue that it's more necessary to get a college degree in this country then it is to buy a home as without a college degree you will likely not earn enough to ever be able to afford a home anyway.

Also, more than half of American households have two incomes so generally the burden is shared at least. And there is definitely a difference between starting your adult life in debt and choosing to go into debt because you decided you can buy a home later in your adult life.

And if you say again that you can choose to not get a degree, you are technically correct but I'd refer you back to my first point: No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job." So damned if you do and damned if you don't.

As I said before, if it is a debt problem, then it should be equally shared among debts. There's nothing special about education debt. If anything, we are too haphazard about demanding young adults go up to their eyeballs in debt to get a degree that they have a very good chance of not even using for their career. The meme of college being necessary to make more money or have a better life is simply not true. Higher education is not a trade school, we have for too long conflated "got my degree" with "skill certification for better job".

Sounds like a good idea to me. Also, why are we "slinging out free money"? You had to qualify for Biden's student loan forgiveness program: You must earn less than $125,000 a year for individuals, or $250,000 for married couples and/or head of households.

For some definition of "qualifying". At "must make less than $125k per year as an individual or less than 250k as a married household" you're "qualifying" 95% of the country. We've already discussed what it means to give out free money to the wealthy.

Young adults who are debt free contribute more to the economy and would probably be more likely to start a family. But yeah, I'm also all for a general debt forgiveness program. It'd be more of a bandaid then solving any issue but as you pointed out, no one here is qualified or capable of fixing the situation. Shit just sucks.

I personally believe that just paying off debts, no matter what kind of debt, is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It's a form of kicking the can down the road. It's useful as part of a wider solution, but I have as of yet seen zero politicians propose debt forgiveness as part of a wider solution. Instead, they use it as a carrot on a stick to bring out the young voters. Those voters who time and time again prove to be an easily scammed and limitlessly naive bunch because they are always 18-22 years old.

[Lord Dave]

Here's the thing about degrees that I've learned first hand:
Even if you want a job outside of your degree, having one helps alot.
It shows your employer that you can finish something and many higher level jobs require A 2 year degree.  Not always officially, but more like "I can't hire someone who doesn't have a bachelors degree in something."

If we're going to go the proper route, I'd propose that community colleges and state schools operate like public schools except you, the student, must pay for any books and supplies.  Otherwise the schools and staff are tax payer paid.

Still might incurr debt, but it'll be much lower.

[AATW]

(UK Perspective)

My parents generation didn't really go to University, as a rule. It was only for special careers or really exceptional individuals.
My generation it was generally the brighter kids which went, but it wasn't exceptional.
Now it's almost become "the thing to do" after school.

And the big difference is I went to Uni before student loans were a thing.
If I went now I'd be coming out £30k in debt before I'd really started out in life. I'd think a lot harder about going now - although probably still would as I pretty much had to for the career I wanted to go in to.

I don't have a problem with the concept of student loans, it's good for the country and economy to have well trained people in the workforce, but it's obviously a personal advantage too in terms of career opportunities and salary. So the principle of having to pay something for that doesn't seem wrong to me. It's just the level of it. Saddling kids with that level of debt before they've really got going as an adult and then them coming out into a housing market where certainly in the cities it's basically impossible to get a foothold on the housing ladder. It doesn't feel right to me.

[rooster]

If anything, we are too haphazard about demanding young adults go up to their eyeballs in debt to get a degree that they have a very good chance of not even using for their career. The meme of college being necessary to make more money or have a better life is simply not true. Higher education is not a trade school, we have for too long conflated "got my degree" with "skill certification for better job".

It's not impossible to get a good job without some kind of degree but it will be a struggle to find something unless you're lucky. But I agree, we shouldn't be demanding it. The practice of weeding out applicants by requiring they have some kind of bachelor's degree even though it's not at all relevant to the job should stop.

I personally believe that just paying off debts, no matter what kind of debt, is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It's a form of kicking the can down the road. It's useful as part of a wider solution, but I have as of yet seen zero politicians propose debt forgiveness as part of a wider solution.

Yee

If we're going to go the proper route, I'd propose that community colleges and state schools operate like public schools except you, the student, must pay for any books and supplies.  Otherwise the schools and staff are tax payer paid.

Still might incurr debt, but it'll be much lower.

Yes, I like this.

So the principle of having to pay something for that doesn't seem wrong to me. It's just the level of it. Saddling kids with that level of debt before they've really got going as an adult and then them coming out into a housing market where certainly in the cities it's basically impossible to get a foothold on the housing ladder. It doesn't feel right to me.

This exactly.

I never argued for higher education to be free. Biden's forgiveness plan only would have given back 10k so even he wasn't going to cover the full debts. But a system where most jobs want you to have some kind of degree even if it isn't relevant, then not paying well, and saddling kids with over 100k of debt with interest is fucking predatory and gross as shit.

The forgiveness plan shouldn't be all we're looking at. These issues need to be resolved at the root. But rich people were bailed out during covid and I never saw anyone throw a hissy fit and try to stop that from happening. But if it's for regular struggling people? Fuck them kids I guess.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/us-medical-schools-that-dont-charge-tuition.html

TLDR: Rich old woman gives $1 Billion dollars to a medical school.  The medical school is now tuition free for the foreseeable future.

So apparently it takes $1 Billion dollars to make a medical school free for all for a very long time. (I won't say forever because forever is a long time).  Makes you wonder how long it would take to make every medical school in the country tuition free if the US used most of its defense budget on that.

Oh... 1 year.

https://medicalaid.org/how-many-medical-schools-in-us-the-definitive-guide-2023/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Medical%20Schools%20in%20the%20US%3F,existing%20schools%20expand%20their%20programs.

192 medical schools in America.
The defense budget is $842 billion in 2024.
So cutting down by $192 billion and giving to every medical student's tuition would basically end tuition for med students for the forseeable future.

Go figure!  Wonder why they don't do that?

[Rushy]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/us-medical-schools-that-dont-charge-tuition.html

TLDR: Rich old woman gives $1 Billion dollars to a medical school.  The medical school is now tuition free for the foreseeable future.

So apparently it takes $1 Billion dollars to make a medical school free for all for a very long time. (I won't say forever because forever is a long time).  Makes you wonder how long it would take to make every medical school in the country tuition free if the US used most of its defense budget on that.

Oh... 1 year.

https://medicalaid.org/how-many-medical-schools-in-us-the-definitive-guide-2023/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Medical%20Schools%20in%20the%20US%3F,existing%20schools%20expand%20their%20programs.

192 medical schools in America.
The defense budget is $842 billion in 2024.
So cutting down by $192 billion and giving to every medical student's tuition would basically end tuition for med students for the forseeable future.

Go figure!  Wonder why they don't do that?

Two major problems:

1. Paying tuition for students doesn't solve the fundamental problem of over-indulgent universities charging too much.
2. The defense budget is driving Pax Americana

The results of your budget plan:

1. Universities become even more greedy since Uncle Sam is paying the bills (they already do this with the GI Bill, suspiciously, most universities have semester hour rates that match the GI Bill maximum payout exactly).
2. Significantly more conflicts break out across the planet and global trade is degraded.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/28/us-medical-schools-that-dont-charge-tuition.html

TLDR: Rich old woman gives $1 Billion dollars to a medical school.  The medical school is now tuition free for the foreseeable future.

So apparently it takes $1 Billion dollars to make a medical school free for all for a very long time. (I won't say forever because forever is a long time).  Makes you wonder how long it would take to make every medical school in the country tuition free if the US used most of its defense budget on that.

Oh... 1 year.

https://medicalaid.org/how-many-medical-schools-in-us-the-definitive-guide-2023/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Medical%20Schools%20in%20the%20US%3F,existing%20schools%20expand%20their%20programs.

192 medical schools in America.
The defense budget is $842 billion in 2024.
So cutting down by $192 billion and giving to every medical student's tuition would basically end tuition for med students for the forseeable future.

Go figure!  Wonder why they don't do that?

Two major problems:

1. Paying tuition for students doesn't solve the fundamental problem of over-indulgent universities charging too much.
2. The defense budget is driving Pax Americana

The results of your budget plan:

1. Universities become even more greedy since Uncle Sam is paying the bills (they already do this with the GI Bill, suspiciously, most universities have semester hour rates that match the GI Bill maximum payout exactly).
2. Significantly more conflicts break out across the planet and global trade is degraded.

1. This is not a "send us the bill" this is a "we give you $1 billion dollars and you stop charging tuition." Thus they can't overcharge for anything.

2. $192 billion is like 20% of the budget.  And realistically, just divide it up by a few years.  No one's going to realistically notice.