US student loans grotesquely high

[Toni]

Interest on credit card debt was no longer tax deductible as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

So, well before my time then.

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but to others. It is very typical for people to cite engineering degrees as the most valuable or most desirable or hardest to obtain, with the bar being assumed to be much lower for humanities.

Well, those things are all true. Financially, engineering degrees are far more valuable on average than humanities degrees, outliers notwithstanding.
Part of it is that those degrees are objectively harder, and fewer people will therefore pursue them.

I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees. I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics. In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I also do not believe that fewer people pursue those degrees because they are 'harder.' I think it is because the degree programs are extremely rigid and not particularly interesting to a lot of people. Financially, engineering degrees command greater monetary compensation because they are traditionally male dominated. Nurses are traditionally undercompensated, not because they have lower levels of education or because their skills are less valuable (we need far more nurses than engineers!) but because of differences in how society perceives and rewards male vs female career paths. There is currently and almost perpetually a shortage of nurses and yet, there is little movement towards making changes in compensation and work conditions that would encourage more nurses to stay in the field. Nurses face a great deal of burn out, not only to the demands and stresses inherent in the work but also because of the level of violence and threats of violence and because of the way nursing shifts are scheduled, and also, because when health care providers seek to limit costs, they often reduce the number of nurses.

Here's a bit about violence in health care--note that this was true PRIOR to the pandemic:

Free On-line Violence Prevention Training for Nurses | Blogs | CDC

CDC - Blogs - NIOSH Science Blog – Free On-line Violence Prevention Training for Nurses -

blogs.cdc.gov

In 2012, the Healthcare and Social Assistance (HCSA) sector was amongst the largest industry sectors in the U.S. employing an estimated 19.4 million workers (13.5% of the total workforce)[1]. On average, over the last decade, U.S. healthcare workers have accounted for two-thirds of the nonfatal workplace violence injuries in all industries involving days away from work [2]. Healthcare workers face the risk of both physical violence and non-physical violence, such as verbal abuse, on the job. These numbers represent only the assaults that resulted in time away from work and not the less severe physical injuries or the psychological trauma that HCSA workers experience from workplace violence. Additionally, these data only capture the reported incidents. The literature suggests that the number of assaults reported by healthcare workers is greatly underreported.

Teaching is another heavily female career path which is vastly undercompensated. Medical doctors, particularly those in general practice, family practice or pediatrics are less well compensated, comparatively compared with what they were 40 years ago--perhaps because more women are now physicians.

I would not say that skills in humanities are not needed or that we do not need English or History teachers. But the demand for such is obviously lower than for say people who design machines or computer chips. And I do not think universities are doing their students any favors if they admit more students to an English PhD program than society can reasonably employ. That just leads to frustration when they graduate and cannot find meaningful work in their field.

Really? It seems to me that we farmed out computer chip manufacturing a long time ago. And those are not jobs that require a high degree of education or training. Same with a lot of manufacturing of machinery. Maybe Biden will be able to bring some of those jobs back.

 

[rousseau]

I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees. I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics. In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I mostly agree with your post, but I thought I'd comment on the bolded. Soft skills are a huge part of many engineering jobs. About 50% of my job is collaborating with people. You can get by in engineering fields without soft skills, because there aren't a lot of people who like doing engineering work. But if you don't have good social skills you'll absolutely be bad at your job.

 

[Toni]

I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees. I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics. In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I mostly agree with your post, but I thought I'd comment on the bolded. Soft skills are a huge part of many engineering jobs. About 50% of my job is collaborating with people. You can get by in engineering fields without soft skills, because there aren't a lot of people who like doing engineering work. But if you don't have good social skills you'll absolutely be bad at your job.

You’re right of course. Most jobs really do require people being somewhat good at soft skills.

 

[bilby]

Until the great Credit Crisis of 2008, debt paper held by the FRB system was insignificant

But far from nonexistent.

"When I was walking down the stairs, gravity was insignificant; Jumping off the roof therefore caused gravity to exist."

Your arguments are nonsense, your understanding is pathetically weak, and your claim that fiat money is similar to commodity money founders on the sequence of events, that you haven't even attempted to address.

Being clueless is at least potentially curable; Being both clueless and under the delusion that you are in the role of the teacher, and never that of the student, is sadly impossible to cure.

 

[bigfield]

Blah Blah Blah. [(Since 2009) The FRB attempts to increase the money supply (and finances government) by buying large quantities of debt.]

Of course it does. Is THIS your novel insight? What a joke.

The point I repeatedly emphasized — as you would have seen if you had tried to learn instead of babbling ignorance — is that this policy began in the U.S. only after 2009. I REPEATEDLY specified that monetary details changed in 2009.

In #530 of this thread:

Setting aside coinage, postage stamps, etc. the U.S. government has three ways to pay for its spending. Please memorize this list: I refer to A, B and C below. And there WILL be a quiz!
(A) collecting taxes, and
(B) selling debt paper to private entities, foreign and domestic, and
(C) indirectly selling debt paper to the Federal Reserve Banks.

The Treasury does NOT sell debt to the FR Banks: The FRB buys debt paper on the secondary market. Things like the SocSec Trust Fund can be viewed as a hybrid: The funds are collected as tax and then invested in Treasury debt paper until needed.

Until the great Credit Crisis of 2008, debt paper held by the FRB system was insignificant — Only (A) and (B) above applied. The FRB would often buy a few hundreds of millions in bonds to lubricate financial markets, but would then often sell it back soon after.

The "money printing" rampage began during the "Great Recession" and now totals several trillion dollars.

ALL economists agree that money the government spends needs to be sucked back up (via (A) or (B)) to prevent inflation. Please note, however that the cyan line in the graph shows another form of money sucking, albeit potentially unreliable. Conventional economists view (C) — "Quantitative Easing" — as a stopgap, as paper the FRB will sell if/when normalcy returns. Economists of the MMT school believe (C) can be made permanent, although some caution must be exercised to avoid immoderate inflation. I am not prepared to adjudicate this difference of opinion.

As clearly seen in the violet line, FRB assets held steady at about 4 or 5% until about 2011: there was no "ex-nihilo" money creation. The U.S. government spent money it acquired by taxes or by borrowing from foreign or private investors.

Is THAT what your perverse obstinacy (and bilby's) has been about the whole time? Failure to read my #530?

You can't redeem yourself by pretending that you knew all along that QE was a very recent phenomenon. Had you been aware of that you would have prefaced your babbled half-truths with phrases like "during the recent MMT era" or some such.

You're still completely confused on the mechanics of course. But thanks for participating.

Well, you kept to your word to not respond to me any more.

Instead you've chosen to invent a statement and attribute it to me:

Blah Blah Blah. [(Since 2009) The FRB attempts to increase the money supply (and finances government) by buying large quantities of debt.]

It took you only a handful of posts to go from look at me I'm a rational centrist to blah blah blah.

Come on.

Nothing I've said is specific to post-GFC monetary policy. I would have thought the article published in 2000 would have been a clue.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It would have been such a better idea to simply make student loan debt dischargeable through bankruptcy. The borrowers get a negative mark on their credit record for making a bad decision, the lenders get a loss for making a bad decision, and future bad decisions are discouraged all around. Instead we have a transference of debt to the government and neither the borrowers nor the lenders suffer any consequences for their decisions.

Not suffering consequences is progressive dogma though.

So while everyone is concentrating on whether or not people are ghouls to the borrowers, the fact is under this arrangement you are either choosing to be a ghoul to borrowers or choosing to be a ghoul to non-borrowers. The question isn't if you are going to be a ghoul, it is who you are going to be a ghoul towards.

Two words: Strategic bankruptcy.

If student loans were dischargeable they would cease to exist because most people would complete their education and then declare bankruptcy. People who take student loans almost certainly exit college with negative net worth.

You are correct, which is why this will work better in the long run. Lenders will be less likely to make the riskier loans. Right now Student Loans are absurdly safe because they can't be discharged. Fewer loans will force colleges to reduce their prices in order to attract students. Fewer loans also means people want more "bang for their buck" and will look at fields that are more likely to help getting a job after graduation. Lower prices also mean a reduced need for loans in the first place.

Yeah, re: your first paragraph response to Loren makes me think exactly the same thing. It's almost like you kinda sorta watched a youtube and now you think you know something.

One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.

 

[laughing dog]

It would have been such a better idea to simply make student loan debt dischargeable through bankruptcy. The borrowers get a negative mark on their credit record for making a bad decision, the lenders get a loss for making a bad decision, and future bad decisions are discouraged all around. Instead we have a transference of debt to the government and neither the borrowers nor the lenders suffer any consequences for their decisions.

Not suffering consequences is progressive dogma though.

So while everyone is concentrating on whether or not people are ghouls to the borrowers, the fact is under this arrangement you are either choosing to be a ghoul to borrowers or choosing to be a ghoul to non-borrowers. The question isn't if you are going to be a ghoul, it is who you are going to be a ghoul towards.

Two words: Strategic bankruptcy.

If student loans were dischargeable they would cease to exist because most people would complete their education and then declare bankruptcy. People who take student loans almost certainly exit college with negative net worth.

You are correct, which is why this will work better in the long run. Lenders will be less likely to make the riskier loans. Right now Student Loans are absurdly safe because they can't be discharged. Fewer loans will force colleges to reduce their prices in order to attract students. Fewer loans also means people want more "bang for their buck" and will look at fields that are more likely to help getting a job after graduation. Lower prices also mean a reduced need for loans in the first place.

Yeah, re: your first paragraph response to Loren makes me think exactly the same thing. It's almost like you kinda sorta watched a youtube and now you think you know something.

One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.

Your analysis would be complete if you changed "progressive economics" to "progressive or libertarian or any economics with which I disagree".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your analysis would be complete if you changed "progressive economics" to "progressive or libertarian or any economics with which I disagree".

Although it would satisfy you, it would no longer be accurate. Perhaps that is why it would satisfy you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.

The right is just as guilty as the left about this.

 

[laughing dog]

Your analysis would be complete if you changed "progressive economics" to "progressive or libertarian or any economics with which I disagree".

Although it would satisfy you, it would no longer be accurate. Perhaps that is why it would satisfy you.

LOL - that one broke every irony meter that ever has and will exist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.

The right is just as guilty as the left about this.

True, corporatism is as guilty of this as progressiveism.

 

[Toni]

It would have been such a better idea to simply make student loan debt dischargeable through bankruptcy. The borrowers get a negative mark on their credit record for making a bad decision, the lenders get a loss for making a bad decision, and future bad decisions are discouraged all around. Instead we have a transference of debt to the government and neither the borrowers nor the lenders suffer any consequences for their decisions.

Not suffering consequences is progressive dogma though.

So while everyone is concentrating on whether or not people are ghouls to the borrowers, the fact is under this arrangement you are either choosing to be a ghoul to borrowers or choosing to be a ghoul to non-borrowers. The question isn't if you are going to be a ghoul, it is who you are going to be a ghoul towards.

Two words: Strategic bankruptcy.

If student loans were dischargeable they would cease to exist because most people would complete their education and then declare bankruptcy. People who take student loans almost certainly exit college with negative net worth.

You are correct, which is why this will work better in the long run. Lenders will be less likely to make the riskier loans. Right now Student Loans are absurdly safe because they can't be discharged. Fewer loans will force colleges to reduce their prices in order to attract students. Fewer loans also means people want more "bang for their buck" and will look at fields that are more likely to help getting a job after graduation. Lower prices also mean a reduced need for loans in the first place.

Yeah, re: your first paragraph response to Loren makes me think exactly the same thing. It's almost like you kinda sorta watched a youtube and now you think you know something.

One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.

It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

My version of economics involves things like supply, demand, risk factors, time preference, and recognizing that changes made to a complex system introduce unintended and unanticipated consequences. Your version of economics involves things like monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and pretending there are no unintended or unanticipated consequences, or that people would even adjust their behavior in response to government policy.

The former is economics, the latter is saying that the former doesn't know economics.

 

[Toni]

It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

My version of economics involves things like supply, demand, risk factors, time preference, and recognizing that changes made to a complex system introduce unintended and unanticipated consequences. Your version of economics involves things like monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and pretending there are no unintended or unanticipated consequences, or that people would even adjust their behavior in response to government policy.

The former is economics, the latter is saying that the former doesn't know economics.

There are different types of economies and there are different branches of economics and different economic theories. There are not different 'versions' of economics. There are different economic theories. Every single theory is built upon the the principle that changing one factor (including laws) in an economic system has consequences. Anticipating and determining those consequences is exactly what economics is supposed to do. You are suggesting that I am unaware that there might be consequences that are unintended or unknown at the beginning. I'm not stupid. I didn't get my economics from youtube videos or political ideology.

It would be an anticipated and intended consequence if lenders and borrowers changed their behavior with regards to loans if they were to become dischargeable through bankruptcy. That would be one point of making student loans dischargeable through bankruptcy. Note: I have not argued that bankruptcy is a desirable way to discharge student loans.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yet when I wrote that lenders and borrowers would change their behavior, you accused me of not knowing economics. Wow.

I guess even those who prefer government economics can't avoid actual economics forever.

 

[Derec]

Nope. History teaches people to look at the context or big picture which helps people grapple with all sorts of problems by looking and understanding how the past influences today. Historians learn how to identify and shift through various original documents and sources and then how to organize disparate sources and events into a single coherent narrative. Simply put, historians learn how to use the past to tell simple but compelling true stories that help us deal with issues today.

Sure. And I am not saying that history as discipline is not useful. Just that there is a limited demand for historians.

 

[Derec]

Yes, there are Pell Grants but for the 22-23 academic year, they are for less that $7K, which will go a long way toward covering tuition in many state schools but probably not fully cover the tuition nor touch books, fees or living expenses.

That should cover about half the instate tuition. Not bad for a grant that is not meant to be paid back.

What is the income limit for fafsa 2020?
For the 2020-21 cycle, if you're a dependent student and your family has a combined income of $27,000 or less, your expected contribution to college costs would automatically be zero. The same goes if you (as an independent student) and your spouse earn no more than $27,000 annually

The answer does not answer the question. The question was about income limit for FAFSA (afaik there isn't one and you have to fill out FAFSA if you seek out loans too, not just need-based grants). The answer is about the income limit after which federal government expects at least some family (or student if considered independent student) contribution.

Pell grants are available well above that threshold though. This website gives some details.

Obviously, income limits depend heavily on number of dependents, etc. but as you can tell, there is a huge number of students whose families would not qualify for Pell Grants but who would also be unable to contribute or contribute more than very minimally for college expenses, even assuming the students live at home and work part time.

Obviously, in many cases students will need at least some loans. But Pell grants, state scholarships (like HOPE) and family contributions/part time work can go a long way eliminating or at least reducing the amount of loans needed.

 

[Derec]

I would argue no, that's not why you take English courses. That's why many/most universities require freshman composition and why many universities require ALL majors to have some required coursework that is heavy in writing.

As I said, science/engineering degrees are far more well-rounded than say English degrees.
You seem to agree with me now.

 

[Derec]

I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees.

It being popular does not mean it's false.

I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics.

In terms of rigor, hard science >> huminites degrees like English.

Nursing is a special case. There is some science content, but obviously not as much as a pre-med program would have. Let alone med school itself. Nursing is more about practical skills than having a good understanding of how the human body works "under the hood".

In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I do not know what you mean by "good listener". Good communication skills are important in every field.
I get your point about soft skills, but I wished nursing had more hard skills too. Especially now that "midlevels" (including NPs) are being given more independence in treating patients.

I also do not believe that fewer people pursue those degrees because they are 'harder.' I think it is because the degree programs are extremely rigid and not particularly interesting to a lot of people.

Explain "rigid". How is a program in engineering, with many different fields and subfields, more rigid than say a program in English? Same with hard sciences.
I think difficulty and rigor are important factors for people when choosing a major. If somebody doesn't think they can hack a program, they choose an easier one.

Financially, engineering degrees command greater monetary compensation because they are traditionally male dominated.

*Sigh* Not everything is about "sexism".

Nurses are traditionally undercompensated, not because they have lower levels of education or because their skills are less valuable

Nurses are hardly undercompensated - $77k is a median salary for a registered nurse according to this. Also there are several different levels of nurses. Some are at "lower levels of education" and their compensation is therefore less than a more educated nurse. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) have a program that is only weekslong and make ~$30k in median. On the other end of the scale, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) that requires more education, but they also make ~$124k in median.

(we need far more nurses than engineers!)

There are also a lot more nurses than engineers. That does not mean nurses are underpaid in the US.

but because of differences in how society perceives and rewards male vs female career paths. There is currently and almost perpetually a shortage of nurses and yet, there is little movement towards making changes in compensation and work conditions that would encourage more nurses to stay in the field.

If you increase compensation (that is already pretty good) you increase costs of healthcare. If you improve working conditions (by for example cutting hours without reducing pay) you increase both the cost and the nurse shortage as you now need more of them. It's not as easy as you make it seem.

Also, how did we get to nurses? How is that an argument that humanities degrees like English are relatively easy and that we need a limited number of English majors? Maybe all those underemployed English PhDs (working as part time adjunct profs like in that old thread) should go back to school and take up nursing. They could make more and help alleviate the nurse shortage you mentioned. But grading papers is way easier than changing bandages or taking BP. Also far less danger to get in contact with those icky bodily fluids.

Nurses face a great deal of burn out, not only to the demands and stresses inherent in the work but also because of the level of violence and threats of violence and because of the way nursing shifts are scheduled, and also,

I am sure they do.

because when health care providers seek to limit costs, they often reduce the number of nurses.

I have heard the opposite. "Midlevel encroachment" where hospitals hire more PAs and advanced nurses and give them more autonomy so they can save because actual physicians cost way more.

Teaching is another heavily female career path which is vastly undercompensated. Medical doctors, particularly those in general practice, family practice or pediatrics are less well compensated, comparatively compared with what they were 40 years ago--perhaps because more women are now physicians.

Again, not everything is about gender. Many men are teachers or general/family practice physicians.

Really? It seems to me that we farmed out computer chip manufacturing a long time ago.

Much of fabrication has migrated to Taiwan actually. But there are still semiconductor fabs in the US. And obviously, design is different than manufacture. A lot of chip design is in the US even if manufacture takes place overseas.

And those are not jobs that require a high degree of education or training. Same with a lot of manufacturing of machinery.

The more automated a fabrication site is, the more educated and well-trained the employees need to be.
And of course, design of chips requires a great deal of education.

Maybe Biden will be able to bring some of those jobs back.

Hopefully. More manufacture in the US will not only increase jobs, but would also make supply chains less vulnerable.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. History teaches people to look at the context or big picture which helps people grapple with all sorts of problems by looking and understanding how the past influences today. Historians learn how to identify and shift through various original documents and sources and then how to organize disparate sources and events into a single coherent narrative. Simply put, historians learn how to use the past to tell simple but compelling true stories that help us deal with issues today.

Sure. And I am not saying that history as discipline is not useful. Just that there is a limited demand for historians.

You miss the point. While there may be limited demand for historians that does not mean that people with history degree face limited demand.