Biden's Inflation Promotion Act - Student Loan Forgiveness

[Ronson]

So how would you get the colleges and universities to lower their rates?

I agree with rogue06 that government subsides (including guaranteed loans) simply drives costs up.

I think the era of college degrees is mostly over. Unless a person is going after a high-powered specialist degree, they are a waste of money. All of the debt out there is evidence of it. I've been trying to get my daughter to go to a trade school, pursuing a career with a long-term future.

[Starlight]

Of course many things are possible when you're dealing with populations that are roughly equivalent to 60% of our largest city.

The idea that America inherently can never be as good as other countries because it is too big, is a bit sad. Surely you guys can implement policies at the state or local levels if those policies are too hard at a federal level?

[Starlight]

I think the era of college degrees is mostly over. Unless a person is going after a high-powered specialist degree, they are a waste of money. All of the debt out there is evidence of it. I've been trying to get my daughter to go to a trade school, pursuing a career with a long-term future.

IIRC the average number of years spent in formal education is one of the metrics that correlates the most strongly internationally with all sorts of other measures of success for countries. I suspect voluntarily reducing the number of years people spend in education is generally a terrible idea.

[Ronson]

IIRC the average number of years spent in formal education is one of the metrics that correlates the most strongly internationally with all sorts of other measures of success for countries. I suspect voluntarily reducing the number of years people spend in education is generally a terrible idea.

American colleges are noticeably globalist/socialist propaganda camps. Graduates come out glassy-eyed with degrees in "history" (cough) or arts or other garbage that are completely useless in earning a living. The debt evidence is plain to see! We had to fire a guy with a Masters (I didn't see his subject) because he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. But he sure liked to complain about his student debt. And I've worked with plenty of doctors and nurses who can barely spell.

Trade schools also provide a formal education; specialized, less expensive, with greater payoffs.

[Gondwanaland]

IIRC the average number of years spent in formal education is one of the metrics that correlates the most strongly internationally with all sorts of other measures of success for countries. I suspect voluntarily reducing the number of years people spend in education is generally a terrible idea.

My daughter is an Electrician's Apprentice, working her way toward completing. She currently makes more per year than the average entry level person coming out of a 4 year school with a bachelor's degree. She has not gone to college, and not accrued any long-term debt.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I think the era of college degrees is mostly over. Unless a person is going after a high-powered specialist degree, they are a waste of money. All of the debt out there is evidence of it. I've been trying to get my daughter to go to a trade school, pursuing a career with a long-term future.

As you pointed out a couple posts later, the big issue now is higher education doesn't educate; it indoctrinates. Sometimes you read about degree programs that some colleges offer and wonder what job would someone with that degree be able to do? Certainly, it seems an Ivy League education just isn't worth the cost anymore.

I went to the local two-year college and got an AAS degree. I could have gotten some good jobs with it but I went on and got a BS degree since I recognized without it, I won't get in the door. Thanks to parents who valued education and saved to help pay for mine plus some scholarships plus a co-op job, I came out of college with no debt. Even then, I recognized I was one of the lucky ones.

Maybe the biggest change we need for both students and employers is to recognize that you don't need a big-name university degree to get a quality education.

[rogue06]

As you pointed out a couple posts later, the big issue now is higher education doesn't educate; it indoctrinates. Sometimes you read about degree programs that some colleges offer and wonder what job would someone with that degree be able to do? Certainly, it seems an Ivy League education just isn't worth the cost anymore.

I went to the local two-year college and got an AAS degree. I could have gotten some good jobs with it but I went on and got a BS degree since I recognized without it, I won't get in the door. Thanks to parents who valued education and saved to help pay for mine plus some scholarships plus a co-op job, I came out of college with no debt. Even then, I recognized I was one of the lucky ones.

Maybe the biggest change we need for both students and employers is to recognize that you don't need a big-name university degree to get a quality education.

StLo.jpg

[Thoughtful Monk]

Traditionally, Christianity has condemned any interest at all, calling it "usury" (as opposed to the modern understanding of that term as just being exorbitant interest) which if followed today, would make it essentially impossible for any Christian to buy a house or have a bank account. One could respond that the church did not understand the modern concept of capitalism, but that's a bit too tidy of an answer for my tastes.

I agree that you can't look at the Bible to find examples of modern capitalism. That is the challenge of being a Christian. How does what was said 2,000 or more years ago apply today?

I think what would come out regarding finances is recognizing debt is an obligation and you have to an extend put yourself under the control of the lender. Be prudent about how much debt you take on. If you are a lender, don't charge more interest that you really have to.

It's something along the lines of "material things are necessary to life but don't accumulate to excess or expect them to take care of you." The parable of the rich man and his barns plus the Old Testament stories about making idols and then expecting them to take care of you come to mind here.

(Apologies, I can't articulate clearly right now what I'm thinking.)

I don't see how having a bank account is un-Christian.

[CivilDiscourse]

IIRC the average number of years spent in formal education is one of the metrics that correlates the most strongly internationally with all sorts of other measures of success for countries. I suspect voluntarily reducing the number of years people spend in education is generally a terrible idea.

I believe there is alot of nuance missing from the college discussion these days.
There's a number of reasons why our college educations are as expensive as they are. I believe one is supply and demand for "main universities". We've created the idea that college is THE next step once you finish high school. While for many people it is, it may not be the best path for everyone. Honestly, there are some people who really aren't going to get much from college, and would do better to go elsewhere and learn a trade. It did not use to be that way. It doesn't help that failing out/dropping out of college leaves you with the debt, and nothing to show for it. This, combined with easy access to cash for college also makes it more expensive.

A side note here. I believe on of the issues impacting student loan amounts is that there's not alot of guidance or stipulations placed on the loans. We aren't talking about loans to merely cover the cost of tuition and books, but also loans to cover rent, grocieries, utilities, etc. In fact, student loans are essentially "pocket money" that can be spent however the borrower wishes, which for kids right out of high school, experiencing "freedom" for the first time, can lead to a whole lot of loan without the maturity to use it correctly.

Then there's salary competition, not only between institutions, but the corporate world as well. A STEM teacher can make alot of money out in the corporate world, so for them to teach, they have to be paid enough to want to stay at the school. (This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that pushes prices up).

College campus competition, quality of buildings, technology, etc. has to be high to attract students, even if the subject they are learning (say, literature) doesn't need alot of expensive equipment or facilities.

There's also the illusion of "price = quality" or "cheap = bad". There's a tuition floor that colleges and education need to maintain for them to project quality. Community colleges (2 year colleges) are frowned upon in the states as being "cheap" even though teaching entry level courses doesn't require alot of advanced specialization.

Finally, not all tertiary education is created equal. You've seen many make the mocking statements, but the reality is that many degrees, in terms of monetary return on investment, are not good. This isn't to say that the education is bad, but racking up 50-60 grand of student debt for a degree that averages 30k a year is a poor monetary decision. (If we had a better way of paying for college this would be a different story, but it's just bad under the current system)


Overall, to me the biggest problem with the forgiveness going on is that it doesn't address any of the above underlying issues. When you simply forgive the debt without addressing the problem, it just invites the problem to come back. It's like bailing out a boat, and never addressing the hole in the bottom.

[rogue06]

I believe there is alot of nuance missing from the college discussion these days.
There's a number of reasons why our college educations are as expensive as they are. I believe one is supply and demand for "main universities". We've created the idea that college is THE next step once you finish high school. While for many people it is, it may not be the best path for everyone. Honestly, there are some people who really aren't going to get much from college, and would do better to go elsewhere and learn a trade. It did not use to be that way. It doesn't help that failing out/dropping out of college leaves you with the debt, and nothing to show for it. This, combined with easy access to cash for college also makes it more expensive.

A side note here. I believe on of the issues impacting student loan amounts is that there's not alot of guidance or stipulations placed on the loans. We aren't talking about loans to merely cover the cost of tuition and books, but also loans to cover rent, grocieries, utilities, etc. In fact, student loans are essentially "pocket money" that can be spent however the borrower wishes, which for kids right out of high school, experiencing "freedom" for the first time, can lead to a whole lot of loan without the maturity to use it correctly.

Then there's salary competition, not only between institutions, but the corporate world as well. A STEM teacher can make alot of money out in the corporate world, so for them to teach, they have to be paid enough to want to stay at the school. (This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that pushes prices up).

College campus competition, quality of buildings, technology, etc. has to be high to attract students, even if the subject they are learning (say, literature) doesn't need alot of expensive equipment or facilities.

There's also the illusion of "price = quality" or "cheap = bad". There's a tuition floor that colleges and education need to maintain for them to project quality. Community colleges (2 year colleges) are frowned upon in the states as being "cheap" even though teaching entry level courses doesn't require alot of advanced specialization.

Finally, not all tertiary education is created equal. You've seen many make the mocking statements, but the reality is that many degrees, in terms of monetary return on investment, are not good. This isn't to say that the education is bad, but racking up 50-60 grand of student debt for a degree that averages 30k a year is a poor monetary decision. (If we had a better way of paying for college this would be a different story, but it's just bad under the current system)


Overall, to me the biggest problem with the forgiveness going on is that it doesn't address any of the above underlying issues. When you simply forgive the debt without addressing the problem, it just invites the problem to come back. It's like bailing out a boat, and never addressing the hole in the bottom.

This is where I'd post the meme of the guy who went to trade school turning off the power to the college grad who couldn't pay his bills but... Found it.

8cd12885266510433ce630660a999305.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

How is that functionally any different from the lender in the Old Testament suddenly being out the full amount they lent?

I do agree Biden shouldn't have done it though.

Sparko and I already pointed out how it was functionally different; you merely ignored or handwaved that away. Further, in the Tanakh, those who lent were fully aware of the relief provisions when they did the lending; it wasn't something suddenly introduced by fiat after the lending was done.

[Sparko]

Their 3rd provision here addresses low-income borrowers going forward:

Part 3. Make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers Income-based repayment plans have long existed within the U.S. Department of Education. However, the Biden-Harris Administration is proposing a rule to create a new income-driven repayment plan that will substantially reduce future monthly payments for lower- and middle-income borrowers.

The rule would:

Require borrowers to pay no more than 5% of their discretionary income monthly on undergraduate loans. This is down from the 10% available under the most recent income-driven repayment plan. Raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary income and therefore is protected from repayment, guaranteeing that no borrower earning under 225% of the federal poverty level—about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage for a single borrower—will have to make a monthly payment. Forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with loan balances of $12,000 or less. Cover the borrower's unpaid monthly interest, so that unlike other existing income-driven repayment plans, no borrower's loan balance will grow as long as they make their monthly payments—even when that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.

Why not just create a federal/state college system like they have K-12? Make going to such a college free, and the professors would be state or federal employees, just like in K-12. Then make going to such a college as a continuation of K-12 (K-14 or K-16). If someone wants to go to a private college, they could pay for it themselves just like parents can send kids to private schools if they want in K-12. Then get rid of the college loan program altogether. Maybe then the private colleges would lower their tuition if they had to compete with free. We already have state colleges, so why not go all the way and make them completely free and cap the professor's salaries as state employees?

[Mountain Man]

This is where I'd post the meme of the guy who went to trade school turning off the power to the college grad who couldn't pay his bills but... Found it.

8cd12885266510433ce630660a999305.jpg

I'm always telling my kids, "Find a career in something that people will miss if you stopped working."

[Ronson]

I'm always telling my kids, "Find a career in something that people will miss if you stopped working."

But to think ahead, too. Some careers may disappear due to technology. I minored in media writing and journalism and look where newspapers are today, not to mention the state of "journalism" in general (nearly complete garbage). And I tell my daughter not to get hung up on elitists who look down on people without a college degree. Jim the BA in Arts can be a snob all he wants, but electrician Joe is laughing all the way to the bank.

[KingsGambit]

Sparko and I already pointed out how it was functionally different; you merely ignored or handwaved that away. Further, in the Tanakh, those who lent were fully aware of the relief provisions when they did the lending; it wasn't something suddenly introduced by fiat after the lending was done.

I did respond to this wrinkle by noting that it would also logically entail that government welfare, and likely taxation per se is inherently immoral due to both involving redistribution of wealth.

Regarding the Year of Jubilee, nothing in the text states that anyone who had previously lent money in the last few years would be grandfathered out, so yes, said recent lenders would be in a position where they were caught unawares.