In the end, the IBR reform is the more important part regardless imo. With the new IBR terms, federal student loans are quite forgiving. Payments are made based off of a percentage of income above...
Exemplary
In the end, the IBR reform is the more important part regardless imo. With the new IBR terms, federal student loans are quite forgiving. Payments are made based off of a percentage of income above a threshold, so if you’re very low income you are paying $0 anyway, as long as you make payments (including those $0 ones) interest cannot add to the principal, and the debt is forgiven in full in 20 years if you keep making payments.
I’m sure there’s some edgecases with particularly high living costs but I’d imagine most people can get by on those terms.
But in the end, for most people “buried” in student loans, it’s predominantly private student loans to begin with - the government doesn’t offer that much $$, you’ll likely only be offered $30-$40k at maximum over 4 years from the government.
And there’s nothing really the administration can do about that.
If I would do one thing, then perhaps remove bankrupcty protections from private student loans for undergraduate loans - this would force private loaners to more seriously take a look at prospective borrower's chances at paying it back. Just for undergrad - doing so for med or law school would seriously inhibit the numbers of doctors and lawyers, and honestly if you're applying for grad school and still don't understand how debt works, that's a you problem.
He can, but he won't. I'll give you one guess who the guy is that wrote the provision that makes it impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy? There is a whole industry built around...
He can, but he won't. I'll give you one guess who the guy is that wrote the provision that makes it impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy?
There is a whole industry built around profiting off the pain of student loans and the powers that be won't let that go.
That's a fair leap to make, not quite where I am coming from. There's no need for the federal government to charge interest on the loans. I have no issue with paying back every dollar I borrowed,...
That's a fair leap to make, not quite where I am coming from.
There's no need for the federal government to charge interest on the loans. I have no issue with paying back every dollar I borrowed, but an 18 year old kid does not understand what "4% interest over a 20 year period" means.
I did things "the right way":
went to community College
transferred to a state college after 2 years
got a STEM degree
And I am in my early 30s sitting on 60k in debt.
That did not happen 30 years ago. Something is very broken.
4% over a 20-year period isn't crazy though. It costs money to manage all these programs and systems. Also, the standard repayment term is 10 years. Something is definitely broken. The cost of...
4% over a 20-year period isn't crazy though. It costs money to manage all these programs and systems. Also, the standard repayment term is 10 years.
Something is definitely broken. The cost of college is crazy. But unless you're advocating for a government takeover of all of higher education, there is nothing the government can do about what colleges charge for their programs.
I won't comment on your situation but I will say you're an above average borrower. By a good margin.
Edit: I should also add that it's really sad that high-school grads don't understand what their debt means. It's sad so many adults don't understand it either.
The government can absolutely influence what the majority of colleges charge for their programs without a "takeover of all higher education". In fact, there are some arguments to be made that...
The government can absolutely influence what the majority of colleges charge for their programs without a "takeover of all higher education". In fact, there are some arguments to be made that tuition rates are linked to the availability of student loans, which intuitively makes sense — if it is easy to get educational loans, then schools can charge more!
Aside from that, the government already has substantial influence over lots of higher ed in the US. So much of university funding comes from federal grants, for example.
I'm glad I double checked. I thought that you were the original commenter for a second and I was befuddled at the possibility of advocating for student loan forgiveness and the reduction of...
In fact, there are some arguments to be made that tuition rates are linked to the availability of student loans, which intuitively makes sense — if it is easy to get educational loans, then schools can charge more!
I'm glad I double checked. I thought that you were the original commenter for a second and I was befuddled at the possibility of advocating for student loan forgiveness and the reduction of student loans. . .
All influence that the government has had on college costs have been a side-effect of the goal of increasing enrollment. If people are ok with the reverse, then that's something to discuss. I've been of the opinion that most people don't want that, but I'm open to being wrong.
I think you're right that increase in costs is a side effect of efforts to increase enrollments, and that most people think that is a good thing. I think its a good thing, too. I just find it hard...
I think you're right that increase in costs is a side effect of efforts to increase enrollments, and that most people think that is a good thing. I think its a good thing, too. I just find it hard to believe that nothing can be done about the issue of student debt short of a complete government takeover, as other countries don't seem to have this problem, and also do no have complete govt control of higher ed.
I would need to look at the data for each country individually. I think the UK has fees and their salaries are much lower. I believe Germany has a substantially smaller percentage of students...
I would need to look at the data for each country individually. I think the UK has fees and their salaries are much lower. I believe Germany has a substantially smaller percentage of students enrolling. I'm sure there are solutions. I'm just not sure anyone would be happier with the necessary changes.
I think it's strange to say that there's nothing the government can do when this is not nearly as big a problem in the rest of the western world as it is in America. It's kind of like people going...
I think it's strange to say that there's nothing the government can do when this is not nearly as big a problem in the rest of the western world as it is in America. It's kind of like people going "oh there's no choice, private healthcare is the only way" when life expectancy is crashing down and no other country faces this issue (to this scale).
The big thing is most debt is held by people in/from the wealthier portions of society. Forgiving debt is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. Average debt is around 25k, maybe a bit...
The big thing is most debt is held by people in/from the wealthier portions of society. Forgiving debt is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
Average debt is around 25k, maybe a bit higher now. So it's not really that much.
The thing is that the distribution of the debt is heavily skewed to the wealthy. 75-80% of debt is held by the top 40% of households.
People with grad degrees hold half of all debt. People with grad degrees tend to be from wealthier families and make more money.
I'd rather spend the 1.8 Trillion, or at least the 75% of it going to the upper middle class and rich, on K-12 education in struggling areas that would help social mobility more.
Yeah if you look at the data, student debt ownership is skewed towards higher incomes, and projections of student debt forgiveness are somewhat regressive as a result. That being said, the actual...
Yeah if you look at the data, student debt ownership is skewed towards higher incomes, and projections of student debt forgiveness are somewhat regressive as a result. That being said, the actual forgiveness policy put out by the administration helps that somewhat by means-testing the relief.
It's a bit of weird thing where people on the internet, who are relatively poor compared to their peers on the internet, are disproportionately affected by student loans, so it seems more present than it necessarily is. Many of the counterfactuals - that is, people who are poor and did not go to college, of which there are a lot - don't tend to go on internet forums very much.
Yes, exactly. I am actually a fan of Bidens plan, giving more to Pell Grant recipients is what makes it worth while to me, as those are some of the best among us. Although, what do you mean people...
Yes, exactly. I am actually a fan of Bidens plan, giving more to Pell Grant recipients is what makes it worth while to me, as those are some of the best among us.
Although, what do you mean people on the internet are poorer than their peers? Is that like the your friends have more friends than you situation?
Well Biden can't do that without Congress, but he can address student loans as Congress has already given the presidency that authority. And since Congress isn't going to do something good like...
Well Biden can't do that without Congress, but he can address student loans as Congress has already given the presidency that authority.
And since Congress isn't going to do something good like you're suggesting. That particular bucket of money (authority to forgive loans/modify terms) isn't really fungible. We might as well forgive the debt, do some good with it, and stop pretending like there is "something better" we could spend that money on.
Forgiving the debt actively takes money away from the Department of Education It's not just free money. And that would increase inequality so much since it would be such a major benefit for the...
Forgiving the debt actively takes money away from the Department of Education
It's not just free money.
And that would increase inequality so much since it would be such a major benefit for the wealthy, and even among other social classes those with college degrees average better.
It is general fund money, not specifically Department of Education. Of course it's not free. You're putting the working middle class vs the poor here and it's not a good look. Low higher education...
It is general fund money, not specifically Department of Education. Of course it's not free.
You're putting the working middle class vs the poor here and it's not a good look. Low higher education costs built the middle class and slurred huge innovation and economic growth in the US.
Hyper focus of a specific form of inequality while ignoring the other benefits is myopic and if we evaluated every government action like that nothing would ever get done. It's funny how these complaints only get wheeled out for young folks with college debt but no other programs/efforts.
I think you wanting to give over a trillion dollars to privileged, upper middle class, primarily white kids is not a good look. Regardless of cost, for the majority of college grads it is a...
I think you wanting to give over a trillion dollars to privileged, upper middle class, primarily white kids is not a good look.
Regardless of cost, for the majority of college grads it is a worthwhile investment, they will recoup the losses.
And it's not primarily cost that stops poor people from being able to access higher Ed. It's that they can't even go in the first place. They don't have access to the same resources in K-12. They don't have as many AP courses, and extra curriculars. They can't afford tutors for the SATs and such. They can't afford the TIME to go to school.
Like just forgive the debt of people on a sliding scale. Why do we need to forgive the 80% of debt held by the top 40%? I mean sure some of it on the lower end of that group should get some help, but universal forgiveness is expressly regressive.
I'm all for reducing costs, but why forgiveness when it's mostly the upper middle class and rich who take out loans? We should look to improve the ability to access it in the future, not give free money to people who already started out ahead of their peers and just acquired a degree that puts them further ahead.
I'm also in favor of free CC, and forgiveness for people who don't obtain degrees (as they got nothing out of it and burdening them doesn't seem worth it).
I mean I gladly will complain about other programs that increase inequality. It stung to lose them but SALT deductions really helped the wealthy, reducing/removing them is good.
Like I actively would be ok with distributing 1.8 trillion to poor people. I just don't want to give that money to people already ahead of their peers by leaps and bounds.
Your argument is not persuasive because it rests on the assumption that the money could be used in "better" ways. It cannot. The basis of your argument cannot be accomplished, at least not with...
Your argument is not persuasive because it rests on the assumption that the money could be used in "better" ways. It cannot. The basis of your argument cannot be accomplished, at least not with this Congress and the way the Senate works, so the argument is wholly moot.
Student Debt Relief is designed to help borrowers and families most in need as they prepare to resume student loan payments in January 2023. Nearly 90 percent of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 per year. And, no borrower or household in the top 5% of earners will benefit from this action.
I'm literally so tired of these bunk arguments against student debt relief as if there are better options for us to take. There are not better options here. Let's take the win and help people instead of the insanely rich for once instead of purity testing a useful program to death because it isn't narrowly targeted at the most poor among us.
Except it's not even generally targeted at the poor, it's actively a massive boon for the rich while barely helping any poor people. I'm not looking for a narrow focus, but not even half would go...
Except it's not even generally targeted at the poor, it's actively a massive boon for the rich while barely helping any poor people. I'm not looking for a narrow focus, but not even half would go to people who truly need it.
It literally will increase inequality.
And shocker most college grads don't instantly recoup the cost, so yeah 90% being under 75k makes sense while still not being good. It's about the advantage they gain over their lifetime from it.
I do think Bidens plan is OK bc of the bonus for Pell Grant recipients.
You say the money can't be used otherwise
Where do you think this money will come from? You are treating it as free money lol. Ultimately it will cost either other programs money or an increase in taxes, and I wouldn't want to cut many programs for a boost to privileged kids, nor raise taxes as a whole
Why waste the political capital to almost exclusively help some of the most advantaged in society?
This is very strange to read because from my experiences speaking to American people in my age group a large of them either cannot afford or was paying off debt, and none of them were upper class....
This is very strange to read because from my experiences speaking to American people in my age group a large of them either cannot afford or was paying off debt, and none of them were upper class. Anecdotally this is also a bit strange considering a lot of the pushback coming from people online.
And as for the "25k isn't that much", gating education behind this kind of money is part of the reason why class divide is growing so fast. This is not, in any way, a reasonable amount of money to charge for an education. Not to mention, the data you're referencing is outdated. Not only is the average much higher, it's growing every year and disproportionately affects marginalized groups.
Spending money on student debt is a way to improve lives directly. This kind of predatory form of education should never be allowed to normalize taking out massive loans as a young adult. For reference, where I live, a bachelor's doesn't tend to go over 15k even for the most prestigious schools and can be found for much cheaper. It's very clear that the current state of government is either unwilling or unable to outright fix its systems, so this to me seems like one of the easiest ways to improve life for the average American.
It doesn't change the fact that 75-80% of debt is held by the richer part of society (the top 40%), Spending money on debt is a way to improve lives of wealthy kids directly. Just spend that money...
It doesn't change the fact that 75-80% of debt is held by the richer part of society (the top 40%),
Spending money on debt is a way to improve lives of wealthy kids directly. Just spend that money on poor people.
Like literally, don't forgive debt of everyone, just primarily poor people and marginalized groups.
The average American doesn't have a degree, we are talking about people who already are a step ahead.
The American people you likely were talking to were upper middle class kids who went to expensive schools by choice.
Decreasing costs is more important to me, and supporting this who truly need it. My peers do not need much help. I have, through work and my SO, met lots of people who did not come from the privileged background myself and many people complaining about debt came from. You know how much debt they tend to have? Not a lot. They got Pell Grants, they went to cheap schools, they fought tooth and nail to make it through. And they came out with not as much debt, or they didn't go. Upper middle class goes no matter what.
Matter of the fact is poor people don't/can't GO to college, so most college kids came from the wealthy. I am all for decreasing costs in the future, improving accessibility, but I don't think directly improving the lives of the privileged ( in more way than one) is a worthwhile endeavor.
Edit: I want to make it clear I would happily support proposals to lower future costs, improve accessibility of higher Ed, and things like free Community College. But even if you made it free many of the disadvantaged in this country can't go because they HAVE to work, or they didn't have to resources to get accepted to college. The result would be a major boon to the wealthier. Forgiveness expressly helps no one else access college, just those who were already lucky enough to get a degree.
Only forgiving part of the population based on their social situation feels like something that will never catch widespread support among the voter base. It's much easier to campaign for...
Only forgiving part of the population based on their social situation feels like something that will never catch widespread support among the voter base. It's much easier to campaign for across-the-board forgiveness to help people who are genuinely struggling, even if it might mostly benefit the wealthier. In this political climate, it's hard enough to pass funding for programs to help anyone, so I might just be thankful to see some form of an attempt - no matter if motivated by political gain - to help.
Though some of my friends were definitely well off, I know of a couple whose life would change following debt forgiveness. It's a step against the predatory loan practices and, I wager, would probably cash the 2024 election for the Dems if passed, which at the very least aren't trying to literally kidnap my friends from their families.
I can acknowledge that my opinion on this can never be as complete as someone actually living in the US, and is largely anecdotal. Truth be told, I don't think a full picture of most issues related to a country's living conditions can be gained from just reading data. I may well be wrong in the long run.
I don't necessary disagree with the conclusion. That said, college and healthcare in the US are much more expensive than anywhere else in the world but the people that work in both are also paid...
I don't necessary disagree with the conclusion. That said, college and healthcare in the US are much more expensive than anywhere else in the world but the people that work in both are also paid much more handsomely than they are paid anywhere else in the world. That is a big piece of the cost. Do you think we should just tell them all we will reduce their salaries to make the costs more comparable to the rest of the world?
Second, and this is the bigger issue for me with higher ed, there are better ways to spend our dollars. If we have to choose somewhere to spend our dollars, I'd choose lots of programs well before higher ed. Certainly not for the vast majority of borrowers who will be financially fine. I fully support $10,000 forgiven. But I'm absolutely certain the vast majority of complainers on the internet would complain that it's not enough, even though smaller amounts are undoubtedly more progressive.
I think you are SEVERELY overestimating how much the average person in college education is getting paid. College administration can make huge wages in the US, and maybe some tenured professors...
but the people that work in both are also paid much more handsomely than they are paid anywhere else in the world. That is a big piece of the cost. Do you think we should just tell them all we will reduce their salaries to make the costs more comparable to the rest of the world?
I think you are SEVERELY overestimating how much the average person in college education is getting paid. College administration can make huge wages in the US, and maybe some tenured professors are getting a good living. But an absolutely HUGE proportion of the actual teaching staff are adjuncts and grad school students, both of which are paid absolute pauper's salaries in the US. The idea that the hugely inflated price of tuition at US colleges is due to teacher salaries is simply not tethered to reality. Heck, I had a full-ride to undergrad and I still graduated with ~$30k in federal debt because I had to pay rent and buy food, and it simply was not possible for me to work enough hours to make a dent in that AND succeed in college.
I did my master's degree in Germany (where I now live and work outside of academia) and had a TA job while I studied, and I was paid just as good a wage as I would've been back in the US -- and that's before you even consider that I had zero tuition to pay and much better benefits than any grad student in the US. Wages in industry can often be lower in Germany, but academic positions in my experience are less subject to this trend because they've been competing on a global scale for longer. Pre-tenured academic salaries in Germany are pretty strictly regulated, so I can say with confidence what I would have made as a post-doc here, and it can absolutely be competitive with a US postdoc depending on factors like location and your field of expertise.
I think at minimum student loans should be interest-free as long as payments are being made. And this isn't out of self-interest either -- since I've left the country and don't plan on returning, I can actually get out of paying my loans through the current system. But there are people who didn't even get degrees who are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and that's just not good for society regardless of how "fair" it is.
I mean, I've looked at the data for a few countries. It's not untrue that people in the US make more. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the entirety of the costs and work forces, but I find it hard...
I think you are SEVERELY overestimating how much the average person in college education is getting paid.
I mean, I've looked at the data for a few countries. It's not untrue that people in the US make more. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the entirety of the costs and work forces, but I find it hard to imagine there are so many differences that it washes away these cost differences.
The idea that the hugely inflated price of tuition at US colleges is due to teacher salaries is simply not tethered to reality.
I don't think I specified teacher salaries.
I did my master's degree in Germany
What are the enrollment percentages in Germany versus the US?
But there are people who didn't even get degrees who are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and that's just not good for society regardless of how "fair" it is.
I definitely think we should abolish and provide relief for people that were victims of for-profit scams. But I'm really skeptical of the claims of these populations that are horrifically burdened. If you have data showing that, I'm open to seeing it, but from my knowledge of student loan debt, it generally is held by people that shouldn't need help with it.
You didn't, but I did, because I contended that while some positions are much higher-paid in the US, those are typically administrative positions (the university president at my alma mater made a...
I don't think I specified teacher salaries.
You didn't, but I did, because I contended that while some positions are much higher-paid in the US, those are typically administrative positions (the university president at my alma mater made a 7-figure salary) and not the bulk of the teaching labor -- the thing that most directly benefits students, particularly undergrads. I think a lot of the money spent at US universities is not spent on things that are actually benefiting students' educations.
What are the enrollment percentages in Germany versus the US?
I'm not sure which enrollment percentages you're asking for, but I've done my best. The source I could find that has stats for the same measures across both the US and Germany is the OECD stats, and the latest year I can find is for 2020. The closest equivalent statistic I can find for general college enrollment OECD's enrollment rates by age for 2020, in which 20-24 year olds have a 51% enrollment rate, whereas the US's rate for that same statistic is 37.7%. This likely includes Germany's much more robust vocational system, though, as attainment of a tertiary degree among 25-34 year olds is 35.9% in Germany and 51.2% in the US.
As for other stats that reflect on college enrollment, there are differences in degree attainment by field between the two countries -- the US has far higher percentages among adults who studied arts, humanities, or social sciences, while Germany has a much higher percentage for adults who study engineering or manufacturing. Weirdly enough, the rates for business/law and math/natural sciences aren't very far apart.
As for master's programs specifically, Germany has a higher percentage of attainment there -- 14.2% of adults 25-34 as opposed to 10.6% in the US.
Another noteworthy statistic is that Germany spends about half as much per full-time student on tertiary education as the US, and at the same time students are generally not charged tuition (or are charged very low amounts of tuition if they are non-EU-citizens in a couple states).
Ok. Well, what do you propose be done about all those people? I think, as you pointed out, this includes vocational training. I recognize that the post-secondary process is different in Germany....
I think a lot of the money spent at US universities is not spent on things that are actually benefiting students' educations.
Ok. Well, what do you propose be done about all those people?
as attainment of a tertiary degree among 25-34 year olds is 35.9% in Germany and 51.2% in the US.
The definition of "tertiary degree" does not, at least according to definitions I found, include vocational training. Feel free to link me to something from the OECD showing they define it...
The definition of "tertiary degree" does not, at least according to definitions I found, include vocational training. Feel free to link me to something from the OECD showing they define it otherwise, but from what I saw they have separate statistics for post-secondary education that isn't a tertiary degree (which I believe is where vocational schools would fall). The only stat I provided that would include vocational institutions is the enrollment for people ages 20-25, since that's all lumped together, but not the attainment stats.
And it's disingenuous to insist that Germany would need to double its enrollment in universities to reach US levels at all. Why would Germany want to be more like the US in this regard? The US is not a shining example here. Germany loses nothing by having both a thriving mostly-free university system AND a robust system for vocational training. In fact, many high school graduates in the US likely go to university (and thus incur a lot of debt) because they don't have a clear alternative like Germany's vocational training. Particularly if you're arguing that people shouldn't go to college if they can't handle lifelong debt, it seems strange to argue it's a GOOD thing that more Americans attend college and incur that debt.
You're also arguing that Germany would need to spend twice as much like the US does to less than double its uni attendence to match the US but... okay? Public uni education is still free in Germany. If it would cost a similar amount to what the US already pays per uni student to have free public university education for all, that would be an objectively good deal for the government!
Of course, most state-funded institutions would like more money. German institutions are no exception to that. German public universities wanting more money from the government is not a good argument for the superiority of US tuition levels and college debt.
Your comments on this topic just reek of a sentiment I see all too often among my fellow Americans -- a tendency to throw up one's hands and go "Well it's the best we can do, nothing we could possibly change without making things worse!" and then, when confronted with the myriad countries who do have better and more equitable systems than the US does in this regard, argue until they're blue in the face about how the US is a special little snowflake and the things that work elsewhere aren't possible here and actually the US system is secretly better if you think about it! It happens with healthcare (another topic you brought up earlier!) and with transport infrastructure (the US is too big to have good passenger trains! no I haven't looked at the history of passenger rail in the US or current passenger rail in China why do you ask). It's a dogged refusal to even consider alternatives to the status quo and it's honestly both exhausting and one of the reasons I struggle to muster up any optimism about the future of US politics and policy.
I was referring to enrollments. The US enrolls nearly twice as many students into Universities as Germany. Germany's number looks close to the US's because they add in vocational students. This is...
The only stat I provided that would include vocational institutions is the enrollment for people ages 20-25, since that's all lumped together, but not the attainment stats.
I was referring to enrollments. The US enrolls nearly twice as many students into Universities as Germany. Germany's number looks close to the US's because they add in vocational students. This is demonstrated by the attainment of tertiary degrees which is also heavily slanted in the US's favor.
If Germany was to try and match US tertiary enrollment and attainment, it would be much more costly. That is one reason the US is so expensive. LOTS of people are going to college.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Why would Germany want to be more like the US in this regard?
I didn't say it did. In fact, I think the obvious conclusion is that too many people are going into college in the US. That is why college is so expensive. I just don't know if people are really going to argue that the US should reduce college access. Is that what you're prepared to argue?
In fact, many high school graduates in the US likely go to university (and thus incur a lot of debt) because they don't have a clear alternative like Germany's vocational training.
I don't think this is true. I think it's fair to say there is a failure in messaging, but there are tons of options high schoolers have.
Of course, most state-funded institutions would like more money.
... Right. Germany is not willing to take on those expenses though.
Your comments on this topic just reek of a sentiment
Easy to say when you impose all your bias on my comments.
The US system is different, has different goals and different outcomes, and costs different amounts. That is literal fact. You've agreed to all of it. You're trying to convince me when I already know this. That was my point.
If you want to compare apples-to-apples, then consider all that. Consider that Germany does not fully fund what they already have and that if they were to try to do what the US does, they would likely do it the same way. There is a shortfall.
Sure, things could be different, but we're going to have very different outcomes. Are you prepared to own those outcomes and take on the side-effects that come with those changes?
For your second point, none of those ways will pass Congress, so that entire point is essentially moot. The power Congress has given to the executive branch is essentially solely related to...
For your second point, none of those ways will pass Congress, so that entire point is essentially moot.
The power Congress has given to the executive branch is essentially solely related to modifying the terms and forgiving student loans here. That money isn't in some fungible bucket that we can make decisions about and Congress, especially the Senate, isn't suddenly going have their heart grow 3 sizes.
Might as well do some good instead of wishing for the impossible and then holding that against the some good.
I completely disagree. I think things like universal pre-K or universal free-lunch are (1) far more likely to pass, (2) far more cost-effective, and (3) have much, much better outcomes for the...
I completely disagree.
I think things like universal pre-K or universal free-lunch are (1) far more likely to pass, (2) far more cost-effective, and (3) have much, much better outcomes for the country.
(1) No, student debt relief can be done by executive authority using law already passed by Congress. Universal pre-K or universal free-lunch require congress so by definition they are not more...
(1) No, student debt relief can be done by executive authority using law already passed by Congress. Universal pre-K or universal free-lunch require congress so by definition they are not more likely to pass than something that has already been passed.
(2) No argument
(3) No argument
But neither (2) nor (3) mean we shouldn't do it.
Your argument is predicated on (1) being true and assuming there is some actual legal roadblock between us now and student debt relief using Biden's executive authority. Unless SCOTUS makes an absolutely fucked up ruling that ignores the plain text of the law, this isn't the case.
So again, your augment is moot because it rests on a foundation of assumptions that isn't true.
Biden already used it and it's going through the courts because some people sued on a ridiculous premise without real standing. So unmooted? Your premise is flawed.
Biden already used it and it's going through the courts because some people sued on a ridiculous premise without real standing. So unmooted? Your premise is flawed.
You're right. I thought you were referring to the mechanism described in the linked article. I agree that the current challenge in SCOTUS seems to have a clear outcome. In all this conversation, I...
You're right. I thought you were referring to the mechanism described in the linked article. I agree that the current challenge in SCOTUS seems to have a clear outcome.
In all this conversation, I think the target of the discussion has been lost. I'm not opposed to 10k forgiveness. I'm opposed to much more though. The discussion always seems to move on to bigger proposals and what I consider to be over-dramatic representations of struggle.
I'm not sure that I would be happy if my country decided to prioritize salary over life expectancy. You're describing one of the core issues with America's current form (in my opinion). Positions...
I'm not sure that I would be happy if my country decided to prioritize salary over life expectancy.
You're describing one of the core issues with America's current form (in my opinion). Positions of power in the US are paid vast amounts of money, giving naive teenagers (especially those who have experienced poverty) something to look forward to and work to become, but the process of becoming a professor is so financially dangerous that no-one who knows better would take it. Kids don't know better.
Yes, I would reduce professor salaries if it meant more people could access higher education, just like I'd slash medical insurance companies so that more people could access healthcare. So much of the wealth in America is congregated in corporations and institutions that could not care less about the average citizen.
Is that the choice though? I sort of get what you're saying, but I can't help but feel many of those kids are still better off having pursued those higher salaries than not. Isn't a degree still...
salary over life expectancy
Is that the choice though?
Positions of power in the US are paid vast amounts of money, giving naive teenagers (especially those who have experienced poverty) something to look forward to and work to become, but the process of becoming a professor is so financially dangerous that no-one who knows better would take it. Kids don't know better.
I sort of get what you're saying, but I can't help but feel many of those kids are still better off having pursued those higher salaries than not. Isn't a degree still worth like a million over a lifetime of not getting a degree? Even at 50k borrowed at 8%, the repayment over ten years is $72,000 with interest. That's top 15% borrowing and over a 10X return. Even taking 20 years to pay it gets you almost exactly to 10X returns.
Yes, I would reduce professor salaries if it meant more people could access higher education,
How does this compare to the current K-12 educator situation?
just like I'd slash medical insurance companies so that more people could access healthcare.
What happens to those jobs? How do you feel about the possibility of AI automating a lot of jobs away?
So much of the wealth in America is congregated in corporations and institutions that could not care less about the average citizen.
I completely agree that there needs to be a change to tax policy. Though even if there were, I'm not sure funding higher ed to the degree necessary to make it free for everyone would be in my top ten things to spend on.
You're completely correct. After looking into it more deeply, I've come to believe the problem is less the salaries, and more-so a lack of government funding of the universities themselves instead...
How does this compare to the current K-12 educator situation?
You're completely correct. After looking into it more deeply, I've come to believe the problem is less the salaries, and more-so a lack of government funding of the universities themselves instead of loan programs, as seems to work in Europe. In fact, it's funny that I made such a stupid point considering how many acollierastro videos I've watched.
Just like I'd slash medical insurance companies so that more people could access healthcare.
I feel I misspoke; there is a place for those kinds of jobs, but in the US their practices are abhorrent, charging ridiculous rates from both the citizens and the government thanks to political lobbying. The average insurance worker isn't at fault for this, sometimes you do what you need to do for a paycheck. When I said slash, I more so meant remove the profit incentive from the industry.
I completely agree that there needs to be a change to tax policy. Though even if there were, I'm not sure funding higher ed to the degree necessary to make it free for everyone would be in my top ten things to spend on.
Free, no. I don't think free education is something every country needs - it's up to the people and the culture at the end of the day. But education of all kinds needs to be affordable. I can, with barely any savings right now, enroll into a university (assuming I get accepted) and pay off whatever loans I need to take within a year or two working part-time.
I don't think I can really argue my points with complete confidence beyond this, it's been a while since I was culturally adjacent to America through the internet, and reliable data seems harder to find.
I think my main stance is that we need a better taxation system in the US. I have lots of ideas on that, but it feels a bit off-topic here. That said, I think we're in some kind of agreement. I do...
I think my main stance is that we need a better taxation system in the US. I have lots of ideas on that, but it feels a bit off-topic here.
That said, I think we're in some kind of agreement. I do think that the cost of college is too high. I don't think (expansive) loan forgiveness is the right solution. (I added the "expansive" because I am ok with lower amounts of forgiveness. I think it will have remarkably effects for lower income grads.) It's a complicated subject though. I just can't be on board with a lot of the discussion on student loan forgiveness as it's currently framed.
I think you hit on the root of the actual problem - financial literacy. Taking out six figures in debt for an art degree is a stupid financial decision. It just is. I realize that's the extreme...
I think you hit on the root of the actual problem - financial literacy. Taking out six figures in debt for an art degree is a stupid financial decision. It just is. I realize that's the extreme example, but there are thousands of students who have done just that for low-value degrees.
Loan forgiveness, while a nice idea, will make this problem worse.
I don't really see how forgiving existing loans will make the problem worse. These are people who have already taken out loans and are struggling to pay them back, not "future forgiveness" for...
I don't really see how forgiving existing loans will make the problem worse. These are people who have already taken out loans and are struggling to pay them back, not "future forgiveness" for people who are just now taking out loans. I suppose you could argue that people will be more willing to take out loans if they expect the government to just forgive them down the line, but given how tenuous this limited forgiveness plan is right now I don't know if one can assume that will be the case.
Regardless of how we got here, it's hard to deny that a substantial segment of the population is burdened with government debt that they have little hope of paying off in any reasonable amount of time. Meanwhile, this debt prevents them from doing things like having families, buying a home, etc which I would wager was the thinking behind getting a degree in the first place. This is bad for communities, and is bad for the economy as well.
I would very much argue this is very far from the truth. About 17% of adults in America have student loan debt. Something like 45 Million Americans. Maybe that's substantial. According to the 2019...
it's hard to deny that a substantial segment of the population is burdened with government debt that they have little hope of paying off in any reasonable amount of time.
I would very much argue this is very far from the truth.
The average starting salary for a college graduate is $55,000 or so. The average bachelors graduate has $30,000 in debt. Assuming 8% interest rate (way higher than actual undergrad unsubsidized rates) and a 10-year repayment. That's $364 a month or 8% of their gross. Probably less than 12% net. That's something they have "little hope" of achieving?
Student loan repayment is not some sisyphean task. It's a very regular task for the vast majority of borrowers. Are there people with insane amounts? Yes. Are they more than likely professional degree holders? Yes. Should we be forgiving that debt when they're basically guaranteed top 10% incomes and wealth if they weren't already born into it?
This is actually a big part of my argument against loan forgiveness. People are already upset that PPP loans were forgiven (even though they had a forgiveness path from day 1). There is no doubt...
I suppose you could argue that people will be more willing to take out loans if they expect the government to just forgive them down the line
This is actually a big part of my argument against loan forgiveness. People are already upset that PPP loans were forgiven (even though they had a forgiveness path from day 1). There is no doubt that the group of incoming students will expect forgiveness as well.
As an extension of that, if people no longer care about the cost of college because the government will just blindly forgive their loans, then there is nothing stopping universities from endlessly jacking up the price of tuition. If nobody cares about college cost, loan forgiveness is basically a blank check to colleges.
I agree that this situation sucks. It's bad for all of the students who took out loans, but let's not pretend that this wasn't predictable when students willingly took massive amounts of debt, and agreed to the terms of doing so. Nobody forced them to go to an expensive university instead of doing something more cost-effective, like a community college for the first year or two and then transfer to an in-state school.
To be clear, I totally support reform in this area. Maybe there should be limits on how much debt a student can take out based on their degree? Or a ceiling for everyone? Maybe the government should just make post-secondary education a public service? If something like that happened, I could see taking sweeping actions for the people who weren't given those benefits to level the field for them.
Or more easily, just make the debt that was taken out 0-2% interest (or something far more reasonable than 7%).
But IMO, not actually fixing the problem and just blindly forgiving $1.7T or whatever in debt is not the way to go, and will make the core problem (college prices) worse.
At least when I graduated high-school there were no financial literacy classes, but you were constantly barraged with college prep, recruiting, etc. You get pushed every day into going to college,...
At least when I graduated high-school there were no financial literacy classes, but you were constantly barraged with college prep, recruiting, etc.
You get pushed every day into going to college, but not given proper education to make a decision on degree vs cost vs career prospects.
Yeah, my niece and nephew just entered college and neither had a good idea of what they wanted to do. I was at least able to show them how to make a smart financial decision when it came to...
Yeah, my niece and nephew just entered college and neither had a good idea of what they wanted to do. I was at least able to show them how to make a smart financial decision when it came to choosing an in-state school that had reasonably-priced tuition, but neither of them knew going in what they wanted to do. That seems to be a common issue. I consider myself to be fortunate that I at least had some idea of what I was going to do, and my degree definitely helped.
We definitely need to prepare students for college and the real world much better. Much of that should be on parents, though.
I wish we could go back and see how accurate people's perceptions of their high school experience are. I feel it was a common discussion to consider the costs and the returns on going to college....
I wish we could go back and see how accurate people's perceptions of their high school experience are.
I feel it was a common discussion to consider the costs and the returns on going to college. Yet dozens of people that I know went through the same experience say the opposite. That it was never something they were warned about.
That's not pedantic, though, it's reality. Let's take a look at my student loans for example. after undergraduate and graduate school. $70,000 at 15 years on a 6.5% interest repayment plan. If I...
$70,000 at 15 years on a 6.5% interest repayment plan. If I follow this plan, I'm not paying $70,000 for college, nor the ~$74,000 for a 6.5% total interest, it is $109,000. Taking $600 a month for 15 years. If it were really worth $35,900 to service a loan that I have auto-pay setup for, I would have gotten a degree doing student loan servicing instead of what I do now. I could service 100 of these loans and have make a revenue of $293,000 each year.
It is pedantic because we all know, in the context of this conversation, I was referring to the annual percentage rate. And yours and @coolmos's argument is flawed. Interest is not static per...
It is pedantic because we all know, in the context of this conversation, I was referring to the annual percentage rate.
And yours and @coolmos's argument is flawed. Interest is not static per payment. You have the calculator right there. Your first month, your interest is $379. The second month it's $377. Your last payment is $3 worth of interest.
Obviously interest capitalizes if you make no payments. But that isn't relevant to my point because the average amount among bachelors grads is $30k. That's capitalization included.
If it were really worth $35,900 to service a loan that I have auto-pay setup for, I would have gotten a degree doing student loan servicing instead of what I do now. I could service 100 of these loans and have make a revenue of $293,000 each year.
Ironically, most people complain about how much finance people make, so partially, yeah, but really there is a ton of cost that goes into that revenue. You realize the government took out a loan to lend you the money you borrowed too, right?
Sure interest isn't static per month but the total amount you pay over the lifetime of a loan is all the same so I don't understand where you feel I am mischaracterizing my point. But to iterate,...
Sure interest isn't static per month but the total amount you pay over the lifetime of a loan is all the same so I don't understand where you feel I am mischaracterizing my point.
But to iterate, and agree to disagree, but money the government spends that goes towards education and making the lives of people objectively better is a net positive and good investment. Making profit off people trying to make their and their family's lives better is despicable in my mind. I think we should be doing way more to make things better and if the government suddenly announced that students would get $20k (or $40k or even all the way) for their education from the government, I would not be opposed to someone getting something, even if I don't get to take advantage of the program. I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Disagree about what? That Congress isn't going to pass useful, well crafted legislation like universal pre-K? Because Republicans control the house and will use the filibuster in the Senate when...
Disagree about what?
That Congress isn't going to pass useful, well crafted legislation like universal pre-K? Because Republicans control the house and will use the filibuster in the Senate when it comes around, so I'm not sure how you can reasonably disagree here.
Or that Biden doesn't have the ability to forgive student debt with executive action? Because he does, it's in the plain text of laws already on the books.
I could sit here all day showing you policies that are expensive and less useful than student loan forgiveness, but I don't feel like you would be amenable to evaluating those similarly as your...
I could sit here all day showing you policies that are expensive and less useful than student loan forgiveness, but I don't feel like you would be amenable to evaluating those similarly as your stance against student loan forgiveness.
The absurd purity test on student loan forgiveness is one I don't understand except for the fact that college attendees drowning under undischargable debt are an easy pinata to whack and feel good about.
The absurd purity test on student loan forgiveness is one I don't understand except for the fact that college attendees drowning under undischargable debt are an easy pinata to whack and feel good about
That's fair. I recognize the value in accuracy in some conversations. This didn't feel like a time where it was really necessary. I simply borrowed the language from the previous comment.
That's fair.
I recognize the value in accuracy in some conversations. This didn't feel like a time where it was really necessary. I simply borrowed the language from the previous comment.
I mean, not trying to attack you, but that's crazy. Idk how you end up in that position assuming you get an ok job. I went to a state school, dropped out (with ~10k in debt), then went to CC, then...
I mean, not trying to attack you, but that's crazy. Idk how you end up in that position assuming you get an ok job.
I went to a state school, dropped out (with ~10k in debt), then went to CC, then a state school (one of the most expensive in state tuitions relative to other state universities), and graduated with 14k in debt from there.
I planned on commuting but COVID screwed things up, but even if I did live there it's another ~10k debt.
So in total I have 25k, and could've had 35k. How on earth did you get 60k? Like I went to expensive (relatively speaking) state schools, and have half as much debt at 25.
And I think I got a good job with my STEM degree, but even lower offers I would've been pretty comfortable.
Did you take even longer than me (6 years) at school? Like, how did you acquire that much debt and/or not pay it down?
Unless you ended up not being able to get a job and stuck in that cycle, then yeah I get it and I feel for you.
Edit: COVID relief also helped a little, probably like 3k. Also if you had other responsibilities and couldn't focus any income on school or savings, for me that'd add like...ill say 15k. So all in all, most debt I would've walked out would be 53k. Which is closer, but then realistically I would've commuted both years at state school saving ~20k.
I did see somewhere that he wanted to keep the student loan forgiveness provision in the debt package so we could possibly still see some forgiveness. I'll believe it when I see it.
I did see somewhere that he wanted to keep the student loan forgiveness provision in the debt package so we could possibly still see some forgiveness. I'll believe it when I see it.
One additional thing I want to say about this is that dangling the possibility of forgiveness in front of people ended up harming them. I read so many comments on Reddit from people who didn't...
One additional thing I want to say about this is that dangling the possibility of forgiveness in front of people ended up harming them. I read so many comments on Reddit from people who didn't want to make student loan payments because they were expecting the loans to be forgiven. Making payments during the period of time with no interest, and with a booming job market, would have been the best financial decision they could have made. Instead, they decided to wait until interest is being charged again so we will end up costing them more overall.
That depends on what they meant. If instead of paying off that loan, they bought random stuff for the sake of pleasure, then yeah, that's bad. But that's also just a bad decision anyway. If you...
That depends on what they meant. If instead of paying off that loan, they bought random stuff for the sake of pleasure, then yeah, that's bad. But that's also just a bad decision anyway.
If you instead parked it in a savings account, or bought some relatively liquid asset, then it's fine. You'll liquidate when payments restart and be slightly better off.
If you parked it an account, and had to spend it on an emergency, that's even better, relatively speaking. Students loans are vastly cheaper than other kinds of unsecured debt - you're not getting 5% with generous repayment plans on a credit card, payday loan, etc. You're out of the emergency and in probably the cheapest kind of debt you could be for it.
Yeah, we just held onto the money during the pause. If the forgiveness doesn’t go through, I’ll probably try for PSLF, but we have been able to hold onto enough to zero out our loans when the time...
Yeah, we just held onto the money during the pause. If the forgiveness doesn’t go through, I’ll probably try for PSLF, but we have been able to hold onto enough to zero out our loans when the time comes.
I'm glad to hear that you're in a position to do that. Many don't seem to have the financial discipline to build up savings. They just spent everything they have each paycheck. My sister-in-law is...
I'm glad to hear that you're in a position to do that. Many don't seem to have the financial discipline to build up savings. They just spent everything they have each paycheck. My sister-in-law is like they and I can't imagine living that way.
We are definitely in a better financial position than many millennials. We're in a lower cost of living area, haven't had any derailing medical costs, and are both able to be very disciplined when...
We are definitely in a better financial position than many millennials. We're in a lower cost of living area, haven't had any derailing medical costs, and are both able to be very disciplined when it comes to goals. So, I for sure recognize our blessings and advantages when it comes to being able to do what we've done.
In the end, the IBR reform is the more important part regardless imo. With the new IBR terms, federal student loans are quite forgiving. Payments are made based off of a percentage of income above a threshold, so if you’re very low income you are paying $0 anyway, as long as you make payments (including those $0 ones) interest cannot add to the principal, and the debt is forgiven in full in 20 years if you keep making payments.
I’m sure there’s some edgecases with particularly high living costs but I’d imagine most people can get by on those terms.
But in the end, for most people “buried” in student loans, it’s predominantly private student loans to begin with - the government doesn’t offer that much $$, you’ll likely only be offered $30-$40k at maximum over 4 years from the government.
And there’s nothing really the administration can do about that.
If I would do one thing, then perhaps remove bankrupcty protections from private student loans for undergraduate loans - this would force private loaners to more seriously take a look at prospective borrower's chances at paying it back. Just for undergrad - doing so for med or law school would seriously inhibit the numbers of doctors and lawyers, and honestly if you're applying for grad school and still don't understand how debt works, that's a you problem.
He can, but he won't. I'll give you one guess who the guy is that wrote the provision that makes it impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy?
There is a whole industry built around profiting off the pain of student loans and the powers that be won't let that go.
I can't help but feel the entire discussion around student loans is getting really similar to "taxation is theft" levels.
That's a fair leap to make, not quite where I am coming from.
There's no need for the federal government to charge interest on the loans. I have no issue with paying back every dollar I borrowed, but an 18 year old kid does not understand what "4% interest over a 20 year period" means.
I did things "the right way":
And I am in my early 30s sitting on 60k in debt.
That did not happen 30 years ago. Something is very broken.
4% over a 20-year period isn't crazy though. It costs money to manage all these programs and systems. Also, the standard repayment term is 10 years.
Something is definitely broken. The cost of college is crazy. But unless you're advocating for a government takeover of all of higher education, there is nothing the government can do about what colleges charge for their programs.
I won't comment on your situation but I will say you're an above average borrower. By a good margin.
Edit: I should also add that it's really sad that high-school grads don't understand what their debt means. It's sad so many adults don't understand it either.
The government can absolutely influence what the majority of colleges charge for their programs without a "takeover of all higher education". In fact, there are some arguments to be made that tuition rates are linked to the availability of student loans, which intuitively makes sense — if it is easy to get educational loans, then schools can charge more!
Aside from that, the government already has substantial influence over lots of higher ed in the US. So much of university funding comes from federal grants, for example.
I'm glad I double checked. I thought that you were the original commenter for a second and I was befuddled at the possibility of advocating for student loan forgiveness and the reduction of student loans. . .
All influence that the government has had on college costs have been a side-effect of the goal of increasing enrollment. If people are ok with the reverse, then that's something to discuss. I've been of the opinion that most people don't want that, but I'm open to being wrong.
I think you're right that increase in costs is a side effect of efforts to increase enrollments, and that most people think that is a good thing. I think its a good thing, too. I just find it hard to believe that nothing can be done about the issue of student debt short of a complete government takeover, as other countries don't seem to have this problem, and also do no have complete govt control of higher ed.
I would need to look at the data for each country individually. I think the UK has fees and their salaries are much lower. I believe Germany has a substantially smaller percentage of students enrolling. I'm sure there are solutions. I'm just not sure anyone would be happier with the necessary changes.
I think it's strange to say that there's nothing the government can do when this is not nearly as big a problem in the rest of the western world as it is in America. It's kind of like people going "oh there's no choice, private healthcare is the only way" when life expectancy is crashing down and no other country faces this issue (to this scale).
The big thing is most debt is held by people in/from the wealthier portions of society. Forgiving debt is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
Average debt is around 25k, maybe a bit higher now. So it's not really that much.
The thing is that the distribution of the debt is heavily skewed to the wealthy. 75-80% of debt is held by the top 40% of households.
People with grad degrees hold half of all debt. People with grad degrees tend to be from wealthier families and make more money.
I'd rather spend the 1.8 Trillion, or at least the 75% of it going to the upper middle class and rich, on K-12 education in struggling areas that would help social mobility more.
Yeah if you look at the data, student debt ownership is skewed towards higher incomes, and projections of student debt forgiveness are somewhat regressive as a result. That being said, the actual forgiveness policy put out by the administration helps that somewhat by means-testing the relief.
It's a bit of weird thing where people on the internet, who are relatively poor compared to their peers on the internet, are disproportionately affected by student loans, so it seems more present than it necessarily is. Many of the counterfactuals - that is, people who are poor and did not go to college, of which there are a lot - don't tend to go on internet forums very much.
Yes, exactly. I am actually a fan of Bidens plan, giving more to Pell Grant recipients is what makes it worth while to me, as those are some of the best among us.
Although, what do you mean people on the internet are poorer than their peers? Is that like the your friends have more friends than you situation?
Well Biden can't do that without Congress, but he can address student loans as Congress has already given the presidency that authority.
And since Congress isn't going to do something good like you're suggesting. That particular bucket of money (authority to forgive loans/modify terms) isn't really fungible. We might as well forgive the debt, do some good with it, and stop pretending like there is "something better" we could spend that money on.
Forgiving the debt actively takes money away from the Department of Education
It's not just free money.
And that would increase inequality so much since it would be such a major benefit for the wealthy, and even among other social classes those with college degrees average better.
I don't think exasperating inequality is worth it
It is general fund money, not specifically Department of Education. Of course it's not free.
You're putting the working middle class vs the poor here and it's not a good look. Low higher education costs built the middle class and slurred huge innovation and economic growth in the US.
Hyper focus of a specific form of inequality while ignoring the other benefits is myopic and if we evaluated every government action like that nothing would ever get done. It's funny how these complaints only get wheeled out for young folks with college debt but no other programs/efforts.
I think you wanting to give over a trillion dollars to privileged, upper middle class, primarily white kids is not a good look.
Regardless of cost, for the majority of college grads it is a worthwhile investment, they will recoup the losses.
And it's not primarily cost that stops poor people from being able to access higher Ed. It's that they can't even go in the first place. They don't have access to the same resources in K-12. They don't have as many AP courses, and extra curriculars. They can't afford tutors for the SATs and such. They can't afford the TIME to go to school.
Like just forgive the debt of people on a sliding scale. Why do we need to forgive the 80% of debt held by the top 40%? I mean sure some of it on the lower end of that group should get some help, but universal forgiveness is expressly regressive.
I'm all for reducing costs, but why forgiveness when it's mostly the upper middle class and rich who take out loans? We should look to improve the ability to access it in the future, not give free money to people who already started out ahead of their peers and just acquired a degree that puts them further ahead.
I'm also in favor of free CC, and forgiveness for people who don't obtain degrees (as they got nothing out of it and burdening them doesn't seem worth it).
I mean I gladly will complain about other programs that increase inequality. It stung to lose them but SALT deductions really helped the wealthy, reducing/removing them is good.
Like I actively would be ok with distributing 1.8 trillion to poor people. I just don't want to give that money to people already ahead of their peers by leaps and bounds.
Your argument is not persuasive because it rests on the assumption that the money could be used in "better" ways. It cannot. The basis of your argument cannot be accomplished, at least not with this Congress and the way the Senate works, so the argument is wholly moot.
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-estimate-biden-harris-student-debt-relief-cost-average-30-billion-annually-over-next-decade
I'm literally so tired of these bunk arguments against student debt relief as if there are better options for us to take. There are not better options here. Let's take the win and help people instead of the insanely rich for once instead of purity testing a useful program to death because it isn't narrowly targeted at the most poor among us.
Except it's not even generally targeted at the poor, it's actively a massive boon for the rich while barely helping any poor people. I'm not looking for a narrow focus, but not even half would go to people who truly need it.
It literally will increase inequality.
And shocker most college grads don't instantly recoup the cost, so yeah 90% being under 75k makes sense while still not being good. It's about the advantage they gain over their lifetime from it.
I do think Bidens plan is OK bc of the bonus for Pell Grant recipients.
You say the money can't be used otherwise
Where do you think this money will come from? You are treating it as free money lol. Ultimately it will cost either other programs money or an increase in taxes, and I wouldn't want to cut many programs for a boost to privileged kids, nor raise taxes as a whole
Why waste the political capital to almost exclusively help some of the most advantaged in society?
This is very strange to read because from my experiences speaking to American people in my age group a large of them either cannot afford or was paying off debt, and none of them were upper class. Anecdotally this is also a bit strange considering a lot of the pushback coming from people online.
And as for the "25k isn't that much", gating education behind this kind of money is part of the reason why class divide is growing so fast. This is not, in any way, a reasonable amount of money to charge for an education. Not to mention, the data you're referencing is outdated. Not only is the average much higher, it's growing every year and disproportionately affects marginalized groups.
Spending money on student debt is a way to improve lives directly. This kind of predatory form of education should never be allowed to normalize taking out massive loans as a young adult. For reference, where I live, a bachelor's doesn't tend to go over 15k even for the most prestigious schools and can be found for much cheaper. It's very clear that the current state of government is either unwilling or unable to outright fix its systems, so this to me seems like one of the easiest ways to improve life for the average American.
It doesn't change the fact that 75-80% of debt is held by the richer part of society (the top 40%),
Spending money on debt is a way to improve lives of wealthy kids directly. Just spend that money on poor people.
Like literally, don't forgive debt of everyone, just primarily poor people and marginalized groups.
The average American doesn't have a degree, we are talking about people who already are a step ahead.
The American people you likely were talking to were upper middle class kids who went to expensive schools by choice.
Decreasing costs is more important to me, and supporting this who truly need it. My peers do not need much help. I have, through work and my SO, met lots of people who did not come from the privileged background myself and many people complaining about debt came from. You know how much debt they tend to have? Not a lot. They got Pell Grants, they went to cheap schools, they fought tooth and nail to make it through. And they came out with not as much debt, or they didn't go. Upper middle class goes no matter what.
Matter of the fact is poor people don't/can't GO to college, so most college kids came from the wealthy. I am all for decreasing costs in the future, improving accessibility, but I don't think directly improving the lives of the privileged ( in more way than one) is a worthwhile endeavor.
Edit: I want to make it clear I would happily support proposals to lower future costs, improve accessibility of higher Ed, and things like free Community College. But even if you made it free many of the disadvantaged in this country can't go because they HAVE to work, or they didn't have to resources to get accepted to college. The result would be a major boon to the wealthier. Forgiveness expressly helps no one else access college, just those who were already lucky enough to get a degree.
Only forgiving part of the population based on their social situation feels like something that will never catch widespread support among the voter base. It's much easier to campaign for across-the-board forgiveness to help people who are genuinely struggling, even if it might mostly benefit the wealthier. In this political climate, it's hard enough to pass funding for programs to help anyone, so I might just be thankful to see some form of an attempt - no matter if motivated by political gain - to help.
Though some of my friends were definitely well off, I know of a couple whose life would change following debt forgiveness. It's a step against the predatory loan practices and, I wager, would probably cash the 2024 election for the Dems if passed, which at the very least aren't trying to literally kidnap my friends from their families.
I can acknowledge that my opinion on this can never be as complete as someone actually living in the US, and is largely anecdotal. Truth be told, I don't think a full picture of most issues related to a country's living conditions can be gained from just reading data. I may well be wrong in the long run.
I don't necessary disagree with the conclusion. That said, college and healthcare in the US are much more expensive than anywhere else in the world but the people that work in both are also paid much more handsomely than they are paid anywhere else in the world. That is a big piece of the cost. Do you think we should just tell them all we will reduce their salaries to make the costs more comparable to the rest of the world?
Second, and this is the bigger issue for me with higher ed, there are better ways to spend our dollars. If we have to choose somewhere to spend our dollars, I'd choose lots of programs well before higher ed. Certainly not for the vast majority of borrowers who will be financially fine. I fully support $10,000 forgiven. But I'm absolutely certain the vast majority of complainers on the internet would complain that it's not enough, even though smaller amounts are undoubtedly more progressive.
I think you are SEVERELY overestimating how much the average person in college education is getting paid. College administration can make huge wages in the US, and maybe some tenured professors are getting a good living. But an absolutely HUGE proportion of the actual teaching staff are adjuncts and grad school students, both of which are paid absolute pauper's salaries in the US. The idea that the hugely inflated price of tuition at US colleges is due to teacher salaries is simply not tethered to reality. Heck, I had a full-ride to undergrad and I still graduated with ~$30k in federal debt because I had to pay rent and buy food, and it simply was not possible for me to work enough hours to make a dent in that AND succeed in college.
I did my master's degree in Germany (where I now live and work outside of academia) and had a TA job while I studied, and I was paid just as good a wage as I would've been back in the US -- and that's before you even consider that I had zero tuition to pay and much better benefits than any grad student in the US. Wages in industry can often be lower in Germany, but academic positions in my experience are less subject to this trend because they've been competing on a global scale for longer. Pre-tenured academic salaries in Germany are pretty strictly regulated, so I can say with confidence what I would have made as a post-doc here, and it can absolutely be competitive with a US postdoc depending on factors like location and your field of expertise.
I think at minimum student loans should be interest-free as long as payments are being made. And this isn't out of self-interest either -- since I've left the country and don't plan on returning, I can actually get out of paying my loans through the current system. But there are people who didn't even get degrees who are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and that's just not good for society regardless of how "fair" it is.
I mean, I've looked at the data for a few countries. It's not untrue that people in the US make more. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the entirety of the costs and work forces, but I find it hard to imagine there are so many differences that it washes away these cost differences.
I don't think I specified teacher salaries.
What are the enrollment percentages in Germany versus the US?
I definitely think we should abolish and provide relief for people that were victims of for-profit scams. But I'm really skeptical of the claims of these populations that are horrifically burdened. If you have data showing that, I'm open to seeing it, but from my knowledge of student loan debt, it generally is held by people that shouldn't need help with it.
You didn't, but I did, because I contended that while some positions are much higher-paid in the US, those are typically administrative positions (the university president at my alma mater made a 7-figure salary) and not the bulk of the teaching labor -- the thing that most directly benefits students, particularly undergrads. I think a lot of the money spent at US universities is not spent on things that are actually benefiting students' educations.
I'm not sure which enrollment percentages you're asking for, but I've done my best. The source I could find that has stats for the same measures across both the US and Germany is the OECD stats, and the latest year I can find is for 2020. The closest equivalent statistic I can find for general college enrollment OECD's enrollment rates by age for 2020, in which 20-24 year olds have a 51% enrollment rate, whereas the US's rate for that same statistic is 37.7%. This likely includes Germany's much more robust vocational system, though, as attainment of a tertiary degree among 25-34 year olds is 35.9% in Germany and 51.2% in the US.
As for other stats that reflect on college enrollment, there are differences in degree attainment by field between the two countries -- the US has far higher percentages among adults who studied arts, humanities, or social sciences, while Germany has a much higher percentage for adults who study engineering or manufacturing. Weirdly enough, the rates for business/law and math/natural sciences aren't very far apart.
As for master's programs specifically, Germany has a higher percentage of attainment there -- 14.2% of adults 25-34 as opposed to 10.6% in the US.
Another noteworthy statistic is that Germany spends about half as much per full-time student on tertiary education as the US, and at the same time students are generally not charged tuition (or are charged very low amounts of tuition if they are non-EU-citizens in a couple states).
Ok. Well, what do you propose be done about all those people?
I think, as you pointed out, this includes vocational training. I recognize that the post-secondary process is different in Germany. The US has 62% of high school grads enroll in colleges/universities.
This is the issue though. If Germany wanted to double it's enrollment in universities (to US levels), they'd have to spend a lot more money. And their universities consider themselves underfunded. They're about 80% publicly funded.
The definition of "tertiary degree" does not, at least according to definitions I found, include vocational training. Feel free to link me to something from the OECD showing they define it otherwise, but from what I saw they have separate statistics for post-secondary education that isn't a tertiary degree (which I believe is where vocational schools would fall). The only stat I provided that would include vocational institutions is the enrollment for people ages 20-25, since that's all lumped together, but not the attainment stats.
And it's disingenuous to insist that Germany would need to double its enrollment in universities to reach US levels at all. Why would Germany want to be more like the US in this regard? The US is not a shining example here. Germany loses nothing by having both a thriving mostly-free university system AND a robust system for vocational training. In fact, many high school graduates in the US likely go to university (and thus incur a lot of debt) because they don't have a clear alternative like Germany's vocational training. Particularly if you're arguing that people shouldn't go to college if they can't handle lifelong debt, it seems strange to argue it's a GOOD thing that more Americans attend college and incur that debt.
You're also arguing that Germany would need to spend twice as much like the US does to less than double its uni attendence to match the US but... okay? Public uni education is still free in Germany. If it would cost a similar amount to what the US already pays per uni student to have free public university education for all, that would be an objectively good deal for the government!
Of course, most state-funded institutions would like more money. German institutions are no exception to that. German public universities wanting more money from the government is not a good argument for the superiority of US tuition levels and college debt.
Your comments on this topic just reek of a sentiment I see all too often among my fellow Americans -- a tendency to throw up one's hands and go "Well it's the best we can do, nothing we could possibly change without making things worse!" and then, when confronted with the myriad countries who do have better and more equitable systems than the US does in this regard, argue until they're blue in the face about how the US is a special little snowflake and the things that work elsewhere aren't possible here and actually the US system is secretly better if you think about it! It happens with healthcare (another topic you brought up earlier!) and with transport infrastructure (the US is too big to have good passenger trains! no I haven't looked at the history of passenger rail in the US or current passenger rail in China why do you ask). It's a dogged refusal to even consider alternatives to the status quo and it's honestly both exhausting and one of the reasons I struggle to muster up any optimism about the future of US politics and policy.
I was referring to enrollments. The US enrolls nearly twice as many students into Universities as Germany. Germany's number looks close to the US's because they add in vocational students. This is demonstrated by the attainment of tertiary degrees which is also heavily slanted in the US's favor.
If Germany was to try and match US tertiary enrollment and attainment, it would be much more costly. That is one reason the US is so expensive. LOTS of people are going to college.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I didn't say it did. In fact, I think the obvious conclusion is that too many people are going into college in the US. That is why college is so expensive. I just don't know if people are really going to argue that the US should reduce college access. Is that what you're prepared to argue?
I don't think this is true. I think it's fair to say there is a failure in messaging, but there are tons of options high schoolers have.
... Right. Germany is not willing to take on those expenses though.
Easy to say when you impose all your bias on my comments.
The US system is different, has different goals and different outcomes, and costs different amounts. That is literal fact. You've agreed to all of it. You're trying to convince me when I already know this. That was my point.
If you want to compare apples-to-apples, then consider all that. Consider that Germany does not fully fund what they already have and that if they were to try to do what the US does, they would likely do it the same way. There is a shortfall.
Sure, things could be different, but we're going to have very different outcomes. Are you prepared to own those outcomes and take on the side-effects that come with those changes?
For your second point, none of those ways will pass Congress, so that entire point is essentially moot.
The power Congress has given to the executive branch is essentially solely related to modifying the terms and forgiving student loans here. That money isn't in some fungible bucket that we can make decisions about and Congress, especially the Senate, isn't suddenly going have their heart grow 3 sizes.
Might as well do some good instead of wishing for the impossible and then holding that against the some good.
I completely disagree.
I think things like universal pre-K or universal free-lunch are (1) far more likely to pass, (2) far more cost-effective, and (3) have much, much better outcomes for the country.
(1) No, student debt relief can be done by executive authority using law already passed by Congress. Universal pre-K or universal free-lunch require congress so by definition they are not more likely to pass than something that has already been passed.
(2) No argument
(3) No argument
But neither (2) nor (3) mean we shouldn't do it.
Your argument is predicated on (1) being true and assuming there is some actual legal roadblock between us now and student debt relief using Biden's executive authority. Unless SCOTUS makes an absolutely fucked up ruling that ignores the plain text of the law, this isn't the case.
So again, your augment is moot because it rests on a foundation of assumptions that isn't true.
Lol. You're right. There is a mechanism that could be used. It won't be used though, so that's moot. Now both our arguments are moot. Where to next?
Biden already used it and it's going through the courts because some people sued on a ridiculous premise without real standing. So unmooted? Your premise is flawed.
You're right. I thought you were referring to the mechanism described in the linked article. I agree that the current challenge in SCOTUS seems to have a clear outcome.
In all this conversation, I think the target of the discussion has been lost. I'm not opposed to 10k forgiveness. I'm opposed to much more though. The discussion always seems to move on to bigger proposals and what I consider to be over-dramatic representations of struggle.
You're the one moving on to bigger proposals.
I'm not sure that I would be happy if my country decided to prioritize salary over life expectancy.
You're describing one of the core issues with America's current form (in my opinion). Positions of power in the US are paid vast amounts of money, giving naive teenagers (especially those who have experienced poverty) something to look forward to and work to become, but the process of becoming a professor is so financially dangerous that no-one who knows better would take it. Kids don't know better.
Yes, I would reduce professor salaries if it meant more people could access higher education, just like I'd slash medical insurance companies so that more people could access healthcare. So much of the wealth in America is congregated in corporations and institutions that could not care less about the average citizen.
Is that the choice though?
I sort of get what you're saying, but I can't help but feel many of those kids are still better off having pursued those higher salaries than not. Isn't a degree still worth like a million over a lifetime of not getting a degree? Even at 50k borrowed at 8%, the repayment over ten years is $72,000 with interest. That's top 15% borrowing and over a 10X return. Even taking 20 years to pay it gets you almost exactly to 10X returns.
How does this compare to the current K-12 educator situation?
What happens to those jobs? How do you feel about the possibility of AI automating a lot of jobs away?
I completely agree that there needs to be a change to tax policy. Though even if there were, I'm not sure funding higher ed to the degree necessary to make it free for everyone would be in my top ten things to spend on.
You're completely correct. After looking into it more deeply, I've come to believe the problem is less the salaries, and more-so a lack of government funding of the universities themselves instead of loan programs, as seems to work in Europe. In fact, it's funny that I made such a stupid point considering how many acollierastro videos I've watched.
I feel I misspoke; there is a place for those kinds of jobs, but in the US their practices are abhorrent, charging ridiculous rates from both the citizens and the government thanks to political lobbying. The average insurance worker isn't at fault for this, sometimes you do what you need to do for a paycheck. When I said slash, I more so meant remove the profit incentive from the industry.
Free, no. I don't think free education is something every country needs - it's up to the people and the culture at the end of the day. But education of all kinds needs to be affordable. I can, with barely any savings right now, enroll into a university (assuming I get accepted) and pay off whatever loans I need to take within a year or two working part-time.
I don't think I can really argue my points with complete confidence beyond this, it's been a while since I was culturally adjacent to America through the internet, and reliable data seems harder to find.
I think my main stance is that we need a better taxation system in the US. I have lots of ideas on that, but it feels a bit off-topic here.
That said, I think we're in some kind of agreement. I do think that the cost of college is too high. I don't think (expansive) loan forgiveness is the right solution. (I added the "expansive" because I am ok with lower amounts of forgiveness. I think it will have remarkably effects for lower income grads.) It's a complicated subject though. I just can't be on board with a lot of the discussion on student loan forgiveness as it's currently framed.
I think you hit on the root of the actual problem - financial literacy. Taking out six figures in debt for an art degree is a stupid financial decision. It just is. I realize that's the extreme example, but there are thousands of students who have done just that for low-value degrees.
Loan forgiveness, while a nice idea, will make this problem worse.
I don't really see how forgiving existing loans will make the problem worse. These are people who have already taken out loans and are struggling to pay them back, not "future forgiveness" for people who are just now taking out loans. I suppose you could argue that people will be more willing to take out loans if they expect the government to just forgive them down the line, but given how tenuous this limited forgiveness plan is right now I don't know if one can assume that will be the case.
Regardless of how we got here, it's hard to deny that a substantial segment of the population is burdened with government debt that they have little hope of paying off in any reasonable amount of time. Meanwhile, this debt prevents them from doing things like having families, buying a home, etc which I would wager was the thinking behind getting a degree in the first place. This is bad for communities, and is bad for the economy as well.
I would very much argue this is very far from the truth.
About 17% of adults in America have student loan debt. Something like 45 Million Americans. Maybe that's substantial.
According to the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, 7.1 million households have over $50,000 in debt. So about 15% of borrowers, less than 3% of adults in the US. Is that substantial?
The interest rates on these loans has been between 4% and 8% for like two decades.
The average starting salary for a college graduate is $55,000 or so. The average bachelors graduate has $30,000 in debt. Assuming 8% interest rate (way higher than actual undergrad unsubsidized rates) and a 10-year repayment. That's $364 a month or 8% of their gross. Probably less than 12% net. That's something they have "little hope" of achieving?
Then consider that graduates have higher incomes. The higher you go up the achievement ladder the more debt they have while also having the highest expected and actual incomes. They're also a miniscule percentage of the population.
Student loan repayment is not some sisyphean task. It's a very regular task for the vast majority of borrowers. Are there people with insane amounts? Yes. Are they more than likely professional degree holders? Yes. Should we be forgiving that debt when they're basically guaranteed top 10% incomes and wealth if they weren't already born into it?
This is actually a big part of my argument against loan forgiveness. People are already upset that PPP loans were forgiven (even though they had a forgiveness path from day 1). There is no doubt that the group of incoming students will expect forgiveness as well.
As an extension of that, if people no longer care about the cost of college because the government will just blindly forgive their loans, then there is nothing stopping universities from endlessly jacking up the price of tuition. If nobody cares about college cost, loan forgiveness is basically a blank check to colleges.
I agree that this situation sucks. It's bad for all of the students who took out loans, but let's not pretend that this wasn't predictable when students willingly took massive amounts of debt, and agreed to the terms of doing so. Nobody forced them to go to an expensive university instead of doing something more cost-effective, like a community college for the first year or two and then transfer to an in-state school.
To be clear, I totally support reform in this area. Maybe there should be limits on how much debt a student can take out based on their degree? Or a ceiling for everyone? Maybe the government should just make post-secondary education a public service? If something like that happened, I could see taking sweeping actions for the people who weren't given those benefits to level the field for them.
Or more easily, just make the debt that was taken out 0-2% interest (or something far more reasonable than 7%).
But IMO, not actually fixing the problem and just blindly forgiving $1.7T or whatever in debt is not the way to go, and will make the core problem (college prices) worse.
At least when I graduated high-school there were no financial literacy classes, but you were constantly barraged with college prep, recruiting, etc.
You get pushed every day into going to college, but not given proper education to make a decision on degree vs cost vs career prospects.
Yeah, my niece and nephew just entered college and neither had a good idea of what they wanted to do. I was at least able to show them how to make a smart financial decision when it came to choosing an in-state school that had reasonably-priced tuition, but neither of them knew going in what they wanted to do. That seems to be a common issue. I consider myself to be fortunate that I at least had some idea of what I was going to do, and my degree definitely helped.
We definitely need to prepare students for college and the real world much better. Much of that should be on parents, though.
I wish we could go back and see how accurate people's perceptions of their high school experience are.
I feel it was a common discussion to consider the costs and the returns on going to college. Yet dozens of people that I know went through the same experience say the opposite. That it was never something they were warned about.
Were you never told to apply for scholarships?
I didn't qualify for most because my parents are loaded, but decided not to pay for my school. I'm not bitter.
Not to discount your experience, but I feel like that's getting into some complexities that most policy doesn't really address.
I'm not moved by this pedantic correction or its implication.
That's not pedantic, though, it's reality.
Let's take a look at my student loans for example. after undergraduate and graduate school.
$70,000 at 15 years on a 6.5% interest repayment plan. If I follow this plan, I'm not paying $70,000 for college, nor the ~$74,000 for a 6.5% total interest, it is $109,000. Taking $600 a month for 15 years. If it were really worth $35,900 to service a loan that I have auto-pay setup for, I would have gotten a degree doing student loan servicing instead of what I do now. I could service 100 of these loans and have make a revenue of $293,000 each year.
It is pedantic because we all know, in the context of this conversation, I was referring to the annual percentage rate.
And yours and @coolmos's argument is flawed. Interest is not static per payment. You have the calculator right there. Your first month, your interest is $379. The second month it's $377. Your last payment is $3 worth of interest.
Obviously interest capitalizes if you make no payments. But that isn't relevant to my point because the average amount among bachelors grads is $30k. That's capitalization included.
Ironically, most people complain about how much finance people make, so partially, yeah, but really there is a ton of cost that goes into that revenue. You realize the government took out a loan to lend you the money you borrowed too, right?
Sure interest isn't static per month but the total amount you pay over the lifetime of a loan is all the same so I don't understand where you feel I am mischaracterizing my point.
But to iterate, and agree to disagree, but money the government spends that goes towards education and making the lives of people objectively better is a net positive and good investment. Making profit off people trying to make their and their family's lives better is despicable in my mind. I think we should be doing way more to make things better and if the government suddenly announced that students would get $20k (or $40k or even all the way) for their education from the government, I would not be opposed to someone getting something, even if I don't get to take advantage of the program. I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good.
There are better ways to spend the money if we want to improve people's lives.
None that will pass Congress anytime soon and can be implemented solely with executive branch authority, so that point is nearly wholly moot.
I disagree.
Disagree about what?
That Congress isn't going to pass useful, well crafted legislation like universal pre-K? Because Republicans control the house and will use the filibuster in the Senate when it comes around, so I'm not sure how you can reasonably disagree here.
Or that Biden doesn't have the ability to forgive student debt with executive action? Because he does, it's in the plain text of laws already on the books.
I disagree that no better ways to spend the money will pass Congress. There are tons of policies that are better uses of those dollars. TONS.
I could sit here all day showing you policies that are expensive and less useful than student loan forgiveness, but I don't feel like you would be amenable to evaluating those similarly as your stance against student loan forgiveness.
The absurd purity test on student loan forgiveness is one I don't understand except for the fact that college attendees drowning under undischargable debt are an easy pinata to whack and feel good about.
Your premise is flawed.
The Biden admin disagrees.
I disagree with that conclusion. If the Biden administration disagreed, they'd have proposed something larger.
That's fair.
I recognize the value in accuracy in some conversations. This didn't feel like a time where it was really necessary. I simply borrowed the language from the previous comment.
I mean, not trying to attack you, but that's crazy. Idk how you end up in that position assuming you get an ok job.
I went to a state school, dropped out (with ~10k in debt), then went to CC, then a state school (one of the most expensive in state tuitions relative to other state universities), and graduated with 14k in debt from there.
I planned on commuting but COVID screwed things up, but even if I did live there it's another ~10k debt.
So in total I have 25k, and could've had 35k. How on earth did you get 60k? Like I went to expensive (relatively speaking) state schools, and have half as much debt at 25.
And I think I got a good job with my STEM degree, but even lower offers I would've been pretty comfortable.
Did you take even longer than me (6 years) at school? Like, how did you acquire that much debt and/or not pay it down?
Unless you ended up not being able to get a job and stuck in that cycle, then yeah I get it and I feel for you.
Edit: COVID relief also helped a little, probably like 3k. Also if you had other responsibilities and couldn't focus any income on school or savings, for me that'd add like...ill say 15k. So all in all, most debt I would've walked out would be 53k. Which is closer, but then realistically I would've commuted both years at state school saving ~20k.
I did see somewhere that he wanted to keep the student loan forgiveness provision in the debt package so we could possibly still see some forgiveness. I'll believe it when I see it.
One additional thing I want to say about this is that dangling the possibility of forgiveness in front of people ended up harming them. I read so many comments on Reddit from people who didn't want to make student loan payments because they were expecting the loans to be forgiven. Making payments during the period of time with no interest, and with a booming job market, would have been the best financial decision they could have made. Instead, they decided to wait until interest is being charged again so we will end up costing them more overall.
That depends on what they meant. If instead of paying off that loan, they bought random stuff for the sake of pleasure, then yeah, that's bad. But that's also just a bad decision anyway.
If you instead parked it in a savings account, or bought some relatively liquid asset, then it's fine. You'll liquidate when payments restart and be slightly better off.
If you parked it an account, and had to spend it on an emergency, that's even better, relatively speaking. Students loans are vastly cheaper than other kinds of unsecured debt - you're not getting 5% with generous repayment plans on a credit card, payday loan, etc. You're out of the emergency and in probably the cheapest kind of debt you could be for it.
Yeah, we just held onto the money during the pause. If the forgiveness doesn’t go through, I’ll probably try for PSLF, but we have been able to hold onto enough to zero out our loans when the time comes.
I'm glad to hear that you're in a position to do that. Many don't seem to have the financial discipline to build up savings. They just spent everything they have each paycheck. My sister-in-law is like they and I can't imagine living that way.
We are definitely in a better financial position than many millennials. We're in a lower cost of living area, haven't had any derailing medical costs, and are both able to be very disciplined when it comes to goals. So, I for sure recognize our blessings and advantages when it comes to being able to do what we've done.