I think many, many people are still under the impression that college degrees are these fantastical portals to a dimension that makes you rich beyond your wildest dreams. And because of that, they...
I think many, many people are still under the impression that college degrees are these fantastical portals to a dimension that makes you rich beyond your wildest dreams. And because of that, they think that you absolutely should have to spend more than most people might make in 5 years just for what is actually a small stepping stone to an actual career. I think most of the people arguing against cheaper college/waiving predatory student loans have never actually been saddled with absurd amounts of debt like this
Or they have, but then were extremely fortunate in their careers, and either don't realize or refuse to acknowledge that; Instead attributing their success purely to "hard work". Or they are from...
I think most of the people arguing against cheaper college/waiving predatory student loans have never actually been saddled with absurd amounts of debt like this
Or they have, but then were extremely fortunate in their careers, and either don't realize or refuse to acknowledge that; Instead attributing their success purely to "hard work".
Or they are from a time (30-70 years ago) when college degrees were significantly cheaper to attain, cost of living was lower, the job market was significantly less competitive, fair labor practices and livable wages were more common, and so for them college degrees really were practically guaranteed to result in well paying careers. All of which they falsely assume still holds true, and so (in their eyes) anyone unable to pay off their student loans must just be a slacker.
Don't have anything to add really other than I completely agree. It's a shame people can't/don't want to see things from a different perspective. I won't even consider college the way things are...
Don't have anything to add really other than I completely agree. It's a shame people can't/don't want to see things from a different perspective. I won't even consider college the way things are going right now. I have zero interest in paying more than I'll be able to handle for what is essentially "Part 1" of a career
I was told by a relative a version of the moral hazard argument combined with saying that she had to pay hers off so others should too. The thing is that she received $17,500 from the Public...
I was told by a relative a version of the moral hazard argument combined with saying that she had to pay hers off so others should too. The thing is that she received $17,500 from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Act. When I pointed that out along with the fact that Sanders' plan to relieve student debt involved a large expansion of that and similar programs, there was some grudging agreement.
I love the little snipe in the moral hazard argument section about banks taking risky action when they believe taxpayers will have to bail them out. The true moral hazard is that those institutions learned they never have to worry about a bad bet again.
I think people wanting others to undergo the same hardships that they did is an immoral and, frankly, kind of stupid conclusion for them to draw, but I do always think there should be more time...
I think people wanting others to undergo the same hardships that they did is an immoral and, frankly, kind of stupid conclusion for them to draw, but I do always think there should be more time given to the logic that gets them there - unlike a lot of things, I don't think it's selfishness or spite, but a misplaced sense of justice.
Forgiving current loans, when previous students had to pay, is unfair. Not immoral, but unfair. In the edge cases where one person made the conscious decision to sacrifice heavily and pay off their loans quickly, while their friend prioritised luxuries and let their loans fall into arrears before having them forgiven, that unfairness is particularly painful.
Problem is, there is no good way to redress the balance. The saver sees this situation, sees the unfairness being created, and fights against it. They want the world to be fair, and they want their hardship to have meaning.
Withholding help from others won't achieve either of these things, but it's a far more straightforward conclusion to reach than "I am angry at my misfortune in the hands of an uncaring world, wish that my own hardships could also be erased, and I'm powerless to do anything about it".
And there it is... the root of the problem hidden in plain sight. The old "if only they hadn't spent so much money on luxuries (like avocado toast and lattes)" argument is pretty thoroughly...
while their friend prioritised luxuries and let their loans fall into arrears before having them forgiven
And there it is... the root of the problem hidden in plain sight. The old "if only they hadn't spent so much money on luxuries (like avocado toast and lattes)" argument is pretty thoroughly debunked at this point, and so assuming that is the only reason someone else hasn't managed to pay off their debts is not only ignorant of the harsh socioeconomic realities most people are currently facing, but is also callous, and incredibly self-congratulatory. We really need to get past this "I succeeded purely because I worked hard and was frugal, and so everyone who didn't succeed and is still in debt must just be lazy and irresponsible" mentality or we're never going to make progress toward becoming a more equitable society.
I'm going to assume and hope that was aimed at the hypothetical rather than at me, because I'm pretty much 100% with you there. Everyone deserves small luxuries (and, realistically, some large...
I'm going to assume and hope that was aimed at the hypothetical rather than at me, because I'm pretty much 100% with you there.
Everyone deserves small luxuries (and, realistically, some large ones as well) and they're almost never going to make the breaking-point level of difference, particularly for someone coming of age in the late 90s or beyond. That truth exists in parallel with the fact that some people have chosen to sacrifice more in the name of their bleak, often unwinnable, financial reality and some have chosen to sacrifice less - and that people will look at the extremes when they're judging the fairness of the situation.
Yeah, that was entirely directed at your hypothetical frugal character (and the real life people who think like them), not yourself. I probably should have made that more clear. Sorry. cc: @vivian
Yeah, that was entirely directed at your hypothetical frugal character (and the real life people who think like them), not yourself. I probably should have made that more clear. Sorry.
I think taking that quote out of context misses the thrust of what @Greg was trying to say? What I got out of @Greg's post was: "Forgiving student loans will disproportionately benefit different...
I think taking that quote out of context misses the thrust of what @Greg was trying to say?
What I got out of @Greg's post was: "Forgiving student loans will disproportionately benefit different groups people depending on their financial situation." Which is subtly different than saying "Financial habits are only important factor when paying down student loans. I had good habits, it worked for me, therefore forgiveness isn't needed." You can say the former without implying the latter, I think. :v
To give a concrete example: Personally, I've just graduated, and right now I have $90,000 in student debt. I think a lot about how I should live my life to be able to pay that down. And, I think...
To give a concrete example: Personally, I've just graduated, and right now I have $90,000 in student debt. I think a lot about how I should live my life to be able to pay that down. And, I think there's a spectrum for how I could act in the coming 5-15 years:
I could save aggressively, spend frugally, work more hours than necessary, make sacrifices, and devote all of my time and energy to paying down my student debt. (I think this is often the advice of common "good financial habits" sources that might show up when googling, e.g. /r/PersonalFinance. So, this mindset is pretty entrenched, I'd say?)
I could stretch out my repayment plan to pay as little per month as possible, take my time, and use the extra spending money on personal luxuries that I would have otherwise sacrificed. I'd pay more in interest long-term, but I'd probably have a better quality of life.
If, 10 years down the line, student loans are forgiven, then Path 1 would have been much more harmful to my mental health, my relationships, my financial security, etc. In that hypothetical, forgiving student debt would be a reality-break. ("All the advice given by the sources I researched... what was the point of all that? Why did I put myself through such hardship when I could have had a leisurely life AND come out ahead financially?") So, I might feel animosity towards people who took Path 2, because from my perspective, they got to have their cake and eat it too.
(Now, personally, I don't think it's worth feeling angry. The fact that I even have a choice at all means that either way, I'd be in a relatively privileged position, and I think that's worth being grateful for. Besides, these other folks aren't really my enemy from a class perspective; the systems that caused this mess are our shared enemy. But, I would understand the frustration of people who were told all their lives by dominant messaging to make sacrifices for the sake of "financial responsibility", only to have the results of those sacrifices be rendered moot.)
As someone who worked my way through school to keep my student loan debt to a minimum and has paid it off in full, I strongly support student loan forgiveness and free education for anyone who...
As someone who worked my way through school to keep my student loan debt to a minimum and has paid it off in full, I strongly support student loan forgiveness and free education for anyone who wants it or could benefit from it. There's a lot more I could have done with my education a lot faster if I hadn't had to worry about things other than learning.
I think there is an interesting policy conversation on how student debt relief should look, though. For instance: should there be means testing or some other kind of mechanism to bend the...
I think there is an interesting policy conversation on how student debt relief should look, though. For instance: should there be means testing or some other kind of mechanism to bend the distribution?
Somewhat surprising to many, student debt is highest among high earners, and so complete debt relief would be a regressive policy (i.e provides more benefit to richer people). Here's a graph
Full cancellation would distribute $192 bn to the top 20% of earners, and only $29 bn to the bottom 20%.
In that sense, complete cancellation is another example of the rich getting richer.
Of course, then the debate is: is that lopsidedness worth it for expedience and convenience? To which the answer is: maybe.
The Biden "proposal" does not explicitly means test, but effectively is progressive for the same reason a flat tax is regressive. Since the distribution looks like that, a flat 10k cancellation would benefit lower income graduates more, since 10k out of 15k relieved is much more proportionally than 10k out of 44k.
It's definitely a complex problem. Wiping everyone's debt in one fell swoop will effectively act as a handout toward wealthier individuals and families, but on the other hand, means-testing is...
It's definitely a complex problem. Wiping everyone's debt in one fell swoop will effectively act as a handout toward wealthier individuals and families, but on the other hand, means-testing is often complicated and tends to have issues politically. I think a flat, non-full payment works initially (with a retroactive provision extending back some amount of time); but in the long-term, a solution needs to be worked out to eliminate continually escalating student debt. I think that public tertiary education needs to be free and universal, with the understanding that the majority of students would be in two-year programs rather than four-year ones. Two-year programs would be standardized nationwide, with increased collaboration with the private sector to create new programs.
I think many, many people are still under the impression that college degrees are these fantastical portals to a dimension that makes you rich beyond your wildest dreams. And because of that, they think that you absolutely should have to spend more than most people might make in 5 years just for what is actually a small stepping stone to an actual career. I think most of the people arguing against cheaper college/waiving predatory student loans have never actually been saddled with absurd amounts of debt like this
Or they have, but then were extremely fortunate in their careers, and either don't realize or refuse to acknowledge that; Instead attributing their success purely to "hard work".
Or they are from a time (30-70 years ago) when college degrees were significantly cheaper to attain, cost of living was lower, the job market was significantly less competitive, fair labor practices and livable wages were more common, and so for them college degrees really were practically guaranteed to result in well paying careers. All of which they falsely assume still holds true, and so (in their eyes) anyone unable to pay off their student loans must just be a slacker.
Don't have anything to add really other than I completely agree. It's a shame people can't/don't want to see things from a different perspective. I won't even consider college the way things are going right now. I have zero interest in paying more than I'll be able to handle for what is essentially "Part 1" of a career
I was told by a relative a version of the moral hazard argument combined with saying that she had to pay hers off so others should too. The thing is that she received $17,500 from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Act. When I pointed that out along with the fact that Sanders' plan to relieve student debt involved a large expansion of that and similar programs, there was some grudging agreement.
I love the little snipe in the moral hazard argument section about banks taking risky action when they believe taxpayers will have to bail them out. The true moral hazard is that those institutions learned they never have to worry about a bad bet again.
Always saddens me when people want others to suffer just because they did. As if improved quality of life isn't something we should all strive for
I think people wanting others to undergo the same hardships that they did is an immoral and, frankly, kind of stupid conclusion for them to draw, but I do always think there should be more time given to the logic that gets them there - unlike a lot of things, I don't think it's selfishness or spite, but a misplaced sense of justice.
Forgiving current loans, when previous students had to pay, is unfair. Not immoral, but unfair. In the edge cases where one person made the conscious decision to sacrifice heavily and pay off their loans quickly, while their friend prioritised luxuries and let their loans fall into arrears before having them forgiven, that unfairness is particularly painful.
Problem is, there is no good way to redress the balance. The saver sees this situation, sees the unfairness being created, and fights against it. They want the world to be fair, and they want their hardship to have meaning.
Withholding help from others won't achieve either of these things, but it's a far more straightforward conclusion to reach than "I am angry at my misfortune in the hands of an uncaring world, wish that my own hardships could also be erased, and I'm powerless to do anything about it".
[Edit] Slight clarification.
And there it is... the root of the problem hidden in plain sight. The old "if only they hadn't spent so much money on luxuries (like avocado toast and lattes)" argument is pretty thoroughly debunked at this point, and so assuming that is the only reason someone else hasn't managed to pay off their debts is not only ignorant of the harsh socioeconomic realities most people are currently facing, but is also callous, and incredibly self-congratulatory. We really need to get past this "I succeeded purely because I worked hard and was frugal, and so everyone who didn't succeed and is still in debt must just be lazy and irresponsible" mentality or we're never going to make progress toward becoming a more equitable society.
I'm going to assume and hope that was aimed at the hypothetical rather than at me, because I'm pretty much 100% with you there.
Everyone deserves small luxuries (and, realistically, some large ones as well) and they're almost never going to make the breaking-point level of difference, particularly for someone coming of age in the late 90s or beyond. That truth exists in parallel with the fact that some people have chosen to sacrifice more in the name of their bleak, often unwinnable, financial reality and some have chosen to sacrifice less - and that people will look at the extremes when they're judging the fairness of the situation.
Yeah, that was entirely directed at your hypothetical frugal character (and the real life people who think like them), not yourself. I probably should have made that more clear. Sorry.
cc: @vivian
I think taking that quote out of context misses the thrust of what @Greg was trying to say?
What I got out of @Greg's post was: "Forgiving student loans will disproportionately benefit different groups people depending on their financial situation." Which is subtly different than saying "Financial habits are only important factor when paying down student loans. I had good habits, it worked for me, therefore forgiveness isn't needed." You can say the former without implying the latter, I think. :v
To give a concrete example: Personally, I've just graduated, and right now I have $90,000 in student debt. I think a lot about how I should live my life to be able to pay that down. And, I think there's a spectrum for how I could act in the coming 5-15 years:
If, 10 years down the line, student loans are forgiven, then Path 1 would have been much more harmful to my mental health, my relationships, my financial security, etc. In that hypothetical, forgiving student debt would be a reality-break. ("All the advice given by the sources I researched... what was the point of all that? Why did I put myself through such hardship when I could have had a leisurely life AND come out ahead financially?") So, I might feel animosity towards people who took Path 2, because from my perspective, they got to have their cake and eat it too.
(Now, personally, I don't think it's worth feeling angry. The fact that I even have a choice at all means that either way, I'd be in a relatively privileged position, and I think that's worth being grateful for. Besides, these other folks aren't really my enemy from a class perspective; the systems that caused this mess are our shared enemy. But, I would understand the frustration of people who were told all their lives by dominant messaging to make sacrifices for the sake of "financial responsibility", only to have the results of those sacrifices be rendered moot.)
As someone who worked my way through school to keep my student loan debt to a minimum and has paid it off in full, I strongly support student loan forgiveness and free education for anyone who wants it or could benefit from it. There's a lot more I could have done with my education a lot faster if I hadn't had to worry about things other than learning.
I think there is an interesting policy conversation on how student debt relief should look, though. For instance: should there be means testing or some other kind of mechanism to bend the distribution?
Somewhat surprising to many, student debt is highest among high earners, and so complete debt relief would be a regressive policy (i.e provides more benefit to richer people). Here's a graph
In that sense, complete cancellation is another example of the rich getting richer.
Of course, then the debate is: is that lopsidedness worth it for expedience and convenience? To which the answer is: maybe.
The Biden "proposal" does not explicitly means test, but effectively is progressive for the same reason a flat tax is regressive. Since the distribution looks like that, a flat 10k cancellation would benefit lower income graduates more, since 10k out of 15k relieved is much more proportionally than 10k out of 44k.
It's definitely a complex problem. Wiping everyone's debt in one fell swoop will effectively act as a handout toward wealthier individuals and families, but on the other hand, means-testing is often complicated and tends to have issues politically. I think a flat, non-full payment works initially (with a retroactive provision extending back some amount of time); but in the long-term, a solution needs to be worked out to eliminate continually escalating student debt. I think that public tertiary education needs to be free and universal, with the understanding that the majority of students would be in two-year programs rather than four-year ones. Two-year programs would be standardized nationwide, with increased collaboration with the private sector to create new programs.
For a more conservative view on the issue: https://old.reddit.com/r/tuesday/comments/k7bspk/column_what_liberals_get_wrong_on_student_loan/
Ignore the title, it came from the column in the Chicago Tribune.