US student loans grotesquely high

[KeepTalking]

Wouldn't it be better to make college less expensive so that people don't have to go deep in debt in the first place?

That is a good idea, but unfortunately it leaves behind those who have already paid ridiculously high tuition using student loans. How do we help those people?

Sure those people who work for Harry Bosch can pay back their student loans with the money they are making from being employed. Unfortunately, not everyone can be employed by Harry Bosch. Unfortunately, some graduates have a very hard time finding any job immediately after college, much less a good, high paying job. A lot of people my age are in debt up to their eyeballs because of the ease of obtaining credit, so they are working longer before they retire. And those aging workers spent a lot less money on their college educations. Unemployment has also gone through the roof since the pandemic. Anyone who is graduating this year, or who graduated in the last year or two are going to be severely impacted by that. Implying that these graduates are not responsible because they are unable to find employment after graduating, is wrong headed, and does nothing to solve the problem.

Fine if you want to speak for me, but then you should read my posts more carefully.

I was not speaking for you except to say that you cannot employ everyone. If I am incorrect in that assumption, why the hell haven't you solved the problem yet by hiring everyone?

The comments at the end were more directed to Metaphor who was implying that graduates who are not paying back their student loans are not responsible. Sorry, I did not quote him directly, and kind of tacked it on after referencing you. In general I loathe discussing things with Metaphor, so I did not necessarily want to draw his attention to it. I also misunderstood your position initially, and likely a bit of that is my fault due to not reading carefully. I will try to do better.

I favor helping people where there need is. I think that we should help people with a cash flow need. Pay is relative. $20 an hour to a person with no debt and no dependents living in Baker City Oregon is not living a bad life. $20 an hour to a single mom in NYC is deep poverty level. Higher Ed is too expensive. Over the years, conservative governments have consistently cut higher ED spending. We should reverse this.

I agree with much of the above.

Secondly, I do believe that people should have an investment in their assets. And an education is an investment. People should have an equity into it. Habitat for Humanity doesn't just give it's homes away. They know that if people are vested to an asset, they will maintain it and grow it. People who receive homes from Habitat still have to pay for their home, but at a reduced cost. Greatly reduced. But they have skin in the game.

I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between home ownership and education. For one thing education is more of a use it or lose it proposition. With an education, it requires more maintenance to keep it up if you don't use it. With a home, the more you use it, the more maintenance you are likely to need. That is why if you just live in a home and don't own it, you are less incentivized to maintain it, and that is how "having skin in the game" works. With education, if you get it and you use it daily in your job, there is little to no cost to maintain it. What are you incentivizing by having someone pay for it to begin with?

 

[lpetrich]

Biden faces mounting pressure on forgiving student loan debt | TheHill

Progressive groups are vowing to raise the heat on President Biden to cancel student debt, a priority issue for a number of Democratic lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

It’s an issue that Biden has failed to deliver on so far, say the groups. Biden has shot down calls to immediately cancel up to $50,000 in student loans and instead supports $10,000 in debt forgiveness.

Let's see if anything happens.

I think that the Biden Admin will want to have some quick triumph if it's too hard to get the other stuff through Congress.

 

[Toni]

Fine if you want to speak for me, but then you should read my posts more carefully.

I was not speaking for you except to say that you cannot employ everyone. If I am incorrect in that assumption, why the hell haven't you solved the problem yet by hiring everyone?

The comments at the end were more directed to Metaphor who was implying that graduates who are not paying back their student loans are not responsible. Sorry, I did not quote him directly, and kind of tacked it on after referencing you. In general I loathe discussing things with Metaphor, so I did not necessarily want to draw his attention to it. I also misunderstood your position initially, and likely a bit of that is my fault due to not reading carefully. I will try to do better.

I favor helping people where there need is. I think that we should help people with a cash flow need. Pay is relative. $20 an hour to a person with no debt and no dependents living in Baker City Oregon is not living a bad life. $20 an hour to a single mom in NYC is deep poverty level. Higher Ed is too expensive. Over the years, conservative governments have consistently cut higher ED spending. We should reverse this.

I agree with much of the above.

Secondly, I do believe that people should have an investment in their assets. And an education is an investment. People should have an equity into it. Habitat for Humanity doesn't just give it's homes away. They know that if people are vested to an asset, they will maintain it and grow it. People who receive homes from Habitat still have to pay for their home, but at a reduced cost. Greatly reduced. But they have skin in the game.

I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between home ownership and education. For one thing education is more of a use it or lose it proposition. With an education, it requires more maintenance to keep it up if you don't use it. With a home, the more you use it, the more maintenance you are likely to need. That is why if you just live in a home and don't own it, you are less incentivized to maintain it, and that is how "having skin in the game" works. With education, if you get it and you use it daily in your job, there is little to no cost to maintain it. What are you incentivizing by having someone pay for it to begin with?

It depends entirely on your profession whether it not it costs anything to maintain it—or at least to maintain credentials. Many professions require ongoing education.

As far as using it to maintain it: I have found that I have ‘used’ information and skills gained many years previously, by pulling them out and dusting them off again.

To me the proper way to view education (and health care) is as a public good. The public is benefited by good access to excellent education and healthcare, directly and indirectly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between home ownership and education. For one thing education is more of a use it or lose it proposition. With an education, it requires more maintenance to keep it up if you don't use it. With a home, the more you use it, the more maintenance you are likely to need. That is why if you just live in a home and don't own it, you are less incentivized to maintain it, and that is how "having skin in the game" works. With education, if you get it and you use it daily in your job, there is little to no cost to maintain it. What are you incentivizing by having someone pay for it to begin with?

Little or no cost to maintain it? My wife spends about $1000/yr for required licensing and education.

 

[KeepTalking]

I was not speaking for you except to say that you cannot employ everyone. If I am incorrect in that assumption, why the hell haven't you solved the problem yet by hiring everyone?

The comments at the end were more directed to Metaphor who was implying that graduates who are not paying back their student loans are not responsible. Sorry, I did not quote him directly, and kind of tacked it on after referencing you. In general I loathe discussing things with Metaphor, so I did not necessarily want to draw his attention to it. I also misunderstood your position initially, and likely a bit of that is my fault due to not reading carefully. I will try to do better.



I agree with much of the above.

Secondly, I do believe that people should have an investment in their assets. And an education is an investment. People should have an equity into it. Habitat for Humanity doesn't just give it's homes away. They know that if people are vested to an asset, they will maintain it and grow it. People who receive homes from Habitat still have to pay for their home, but at a reduced cost. Greatly reduced. But they have skin in the game.

I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between home ownership and education. For one thing education is more of a use it or lose it proposition. With an education, it requires more maintenance to keep it up if you don't use it. With a home, the more you use it, the more maintenance you are likely to need. That is why if you just live in a home and don't own it, you are less incentivized to maintain it, and that is how "having skin in the game" works. With education, if you get it and you use it daily in your job, there is little to no cost to maintain it. What are you incentivizing by having someone pay for it to begin with?

It depends entirely on your profession whether it not it costs anything to maintain it—or at least to maintain credentials. Many professions require ongoing education.

As far as using it to maintain it: I have found that I have ‘used’ information and skills gained many years previously, by pulling them out and dusting them off again.

To me the proper way to view education (and health care) is as a public good. The public is benefited by good access to excellent education and healthcare, directly and indirectly.

I don't disagree, and it seems you agree with my point that education is not like real estate, and "having skin on the game" makes very little sense when applied to paying for an education.

 

[KeepTalking]

I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between home ownership and education. For one thing education is more of a use it or lose it proposition. With an education, it requires more maintenance to keep it up if you don't use it. With a home, the more you use it, the more maintenance you are likely to need. That is why if you just live in a home and don't own it, you are less incentivized to maintain it, and that is how "having skin in the game" works. With education, if you get it and you use it daily in your job, there is little to no cost to maintain it. What are you incentivizing by having someone pay for it to begin with?

Little or no cost to maintain it? My wife spends about $1000/yr for required licensing and education.

Does her having had "skin in the game" when she paid for her education in any way affect her current want or need to invest in her yearly licensing?

 

[Toni]

It depends entirely on your profession whether it not it costs anything to maintain it—or at least to maintain credentials. Many professions require ongoing education.

As far as using it to maintain it: I have found that I have ‘used’ information and skills gained many years previously, by pulling them out and dusting them off again.

To me the proper way to view education (and health care) is as a public good. The public is benefited by good access to excellent education and healthcare, directly and indirectly.

I don't disagree, and it seems you agree with my point that education is not like real estate, and "having skin on the game" makes very little sense when applied to paying for an education.

I do--but I think our society will need to make some big sea changes in our attitudes. And I worry very much how free (public) university education might affect the quality of that education because I am very familiar with the political forces that always want to 'save taxpayer money'--and this also applies to health care. In principle, I'm 100% in favor. In reality, I have some concerns. The other thing that concerns me is if free public university education will give additional prestige and eclat to (some) private universities and inadvertently widen the gap between the ruling class and the rest of us. (I'm in favor of all of us being the ruling class. A janitor or garbage collector should have no less say than a Fortune 500 CEO in the voting booth--and in political campaigns as well.)

 

[Rhea]

We had nearly free education 40 years ago when state schools could be done on the wages of a summer job. They were worth everything to us. And the quality was sufficient to keep us well employed for the next 3-4 decades.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We had nearly free education 40 years ago when state schools could be done on the wages of a summer job. They were worth everything to us. And the quality was sufficient to keep us well employed for the next 3-4 decades.

The schools aren't more expensive now, it's just the government pays a lot less of the cost.

 

[lpetrich]

After extending the rent moratorium, the next issue is the student-loan payment moratorium and the issue of student-debt cancellation.

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "NEW: Nancy Pelosi’s surprise flip on student debt cancellation came after urging from billionaire power couple (link) by @kenklippenstein and me" / Twitter

Pelosi’s Surprise Flip on Student Debt Cancellation Came After Urging From Billionaire Power Couple

The drive to persuade President Joe Biden to cancel student debt took a major hit last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned Congress with a surprise statement in opposition. The move may put her at odds with much of the public and the Democratic Party, but it aligns her with Democratic megadonors Steven and Mary Swig, the billionaire scions of the Bay Area’s oldest real estate dynasty who have deep ties to the California representative. Steven Swig has also long served as a treasurer for Pelosi in her fundraising efforts.

The Swigs are the author of a memo which argued that debt cancellation by executive order is illegal, a memo that was circulated among Congressional leaders.

The Swigs are big supporters of NP: "The Swigs also enjoy extended family ties to the Pelosis. Their niece worked for Pelosi from 2018 until March of this year, serving as a staff assistant, legislative correspondent, and policy associate."

The document itself: Student Debt Cancellation Backgrounder - DocumentCloud

Though Pelosi says she supports student debt cancellation via congressional legislation — a position shared by the Swigs — her statement last week represents a departure from her previous silence on the issue. “The president can’t do it — so that’s not even a discussion,” Pelosi said during a news conference, referring to a presidential executive order to cancel student debt. She continued: “Suppose … your child just decided they, at this time, [do] not want to go to college, but you’re paying taxes to forgive somebody else’s obligations. You may not be happy about that.”

 

[Jarhyn]

After extending the rent moratorium, the next issue is the student-loan payment moratorium and the issue of student-debt cancellation.

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "NEW: Nancy Pelosi’s surprise flip on student debt cancellation came after urging from billionaire power couple (link) by @kenklippenstein and me" / Twitter

Pelosi’s Surprise Flip on Student Debt Cancellation Came After Urging From Billionaire Power Couple

The drive to persuade President Joe Biden to cancel student debt took a major hit last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned Congress with a surprise statement in opposition. The move may put her at odds with much of the public and the Democratic Party, but it aligns her with Democratic megadonors Steven and Mary Swig, the billionaire scions of the Bay Area’s oldest real estate dynasty who have deep ties to the California representative. Steven Swig has also long served as a treasurer for Pelosi in her fundraising efforts.

The Swigs are the author of a memo which argued that debt cancellation by executive order is illegal, a memo that was circulated among Congressional leaders.

The Swigs are big supporters of NP: "The Swigs also enjoy extended family ties to the Pelosis. Their niece worked for Pelosi from 2018 until March of this year, serving as a staff assistant, legislative correspondent, and policy associate."

The document itself: Student Debt Cancellation Backgrounder - DocumentCloud

Though Pelosi says she supports student debt cancellation via congressional legislation — a position shared by the Swigs — her statement last week represents a departure from her previous silence on the issue. “The president can’t do it — so that’s not even a discussion,” Pelosi said during a news conference, referring to a presidential executive order to cancel student debt. She continued: “Suppose … your child just decided they, at this time, [do] not want to go to college, but you’re paying taxes to forgive somebody else’s obligations. You may not be happy about that.”

God, I wish someone could unseat her, but Pelosi has the Demokaren vote locked down in Cali.

I'll look forward to seeing maybe a glimmer of hope appear in some long sequel to Dems Unseating Each Other where Pelosi actually goes down.

 

[lpetrich]

You are not alone.
PunishedCzarina on Twitter: "Marie Antoinette never actually said “let them eat cake,” but Nancy Pelosi actually showed you her $15,000 refrigerator stocked with artisanal ice cream and then went on vacation while mass evictions began. Just something to think about." / Twitter

Then
Shahid Buttar for Congress on Twitter: "The only way to hold Nancy Pelosi accountable is to replace her.

We came closer last November than anyone has over the entire generation she has held her seat.

2022 beckons." / Twitter
He tried: Nancy Pelosi - Ballotpedia

California uses a "top two" or automatic-runoff system. The primary election is a nonpartisan, blanket, jungle primary. The top two winners then continue to the general election.

The 2020 primary election:
NP: 74.0%, SB 13.0%, John Dennis (R): 7.7%, others: 2.0%, 1.8%, 1.5%

The 2020 general election:
NP: 77.6%, SB 22.4%


SB first tried in 2018:
NP: 68.5%, Lisa Remmer (R) 9.1%, SB 8.5%, others 5.9%, 4.6%, 2.0%, 1.4%

The general election was NP 86.8% LR 13.2%. In previous general elections, NP won big:

• 2016: 80.9%
• 2014: 83.3%
• 2012: 85.1%
• (before 2012, her district was the 8th district)
• 2010: 80.1%
• 2008: 71.9%
• 2006: 80.4%
• 2004: 82.9%
• 2002: 79.6%
• 2000: 84.4%
• 1998: 85.5%
• 1996: 84.3%
• 1994: 81.8%
• 1992: 82.5%
• (before 1992, her district was the 5th district)
• 1990: 77.2%
• 1988: 76.4%

In most of them, it was a Republican in second place, though in some of them, it was an independent. Greens and Libertarians were usually far behind.

 

[lpetrich]

PunishedCzarina on Twitter: "Marie Antoinette never actually said “let them eat cake,” but Nancy Pelosi actually showed you her $15,000 refrigerator stocked with artisanal ice cream and then went on vacation while mass evictions began. Just something to think about." / Twitter

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "Hopefully house leadership including @SpeakerPelosi read the full memo and see that the path forward recommended here is to pass my bill on student debt cancellation. The freedom to prosper does rest with full cancelation as they note at the end of the memo " / Twitter


Then I saw this news: Kyle Griffin on Twitter: "BREAKING: The Biden admin has just extended the pause on student loan repayment, interest, and collections until January 31, 2022." / Twitter

Student loan payment pause to run through January 2022 - The Washington Post

Biden administration extends pause on federal student loan payments through January

The Education Department said Friday it will extend the suspension of federal student loan payments through Jan. 31, 2022, marking the fourth time the agency has given borrowers breathing room amid the pandemic. The department says it will be the final extension offered to borrowers.

The moratorium was set to expire on Sept. 30, but Congressional Democrats had urged the Biden administration to push back the date as the public health crisis has left many Americans struggling to regain their financial footing. The Education Department had also pressed the White House for a final extension to help borrowers smoothly transition back into repayment, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

 

[Trausti]

After extending the rent moratorium, the next issue is the student-loan payment moratorium and the issue of student-debt cancellation.

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "NEW: Nancy Pelosi’s surprise flip on student debt cancellation came after urging from billionaire power couple (link) by @kenklippenstein and me" / Twitter

Pelosi’s Surprise Flip on Student Debt Cancellation Came After Urging From Billionaire Power Couple

The drive to persuade President Joe Biden to cancel student debt took a major hit last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned Congress with a surprise statement in opposition. The move may put her at odds with much of the public and the Democratic Party, but it aligns her with Democratic megadonors Steven and Mary Swig, the billionaire scions of the Bay Area’s oldest real estate dynasty who have deep ties to the California representative. Steven Swig has also long served as a treasurer for Pelosi in her fundraising efforts.

The Swigs are the author of a memo which argued that debt cancellation by executive order is illegal, a memo that was circulated among Congressional leaders.

The Swigs are big supporters of NP: "The Swigs also enjoy extended family ties to the Pelosis. Their niece worked for Pelosi from 2018 until March of this year, serving as a staff assistant, legislative correspondent, and policy associate."

The document itself: Student Debt Cancellation Backgrounder - DocumentCloud

Though Pelosi says she supports student debt cancellation via congressional legislation — a position shared by the Swigs — her statement last week represents a departure from her previous silence on the issue. “The president can’t do it — so that’s not even a discussion,” Pelosi said during a news conference, referring to a presidential executive order to cancel student debt. She continued: “Suppose … your child just decided they, at this time, [do] not want to go to college, but you’re paying taxes to forgive somebody else’s obligations. You may not be happy about that.”

Wow. Common sense from Pelosi.

 

[Politesse]

Surprise? Why would anyone be surprised by that?

I'm surprised when progressive legislation gets enacted. Not when it is sabotaged by the political center. That is just business as usual in Washington.

 

[lpetrich]

Great floor speech from AOC on student-debt cancellation. She talked about how important it was for her family for her to go to college, and she said that she didn't continue to graduate school because of what an enormous debt that she would then have had. She also said that she still has $17,000 in student debt.
Forbes on Twitter: "STUDENT DEBT: Rep. @AOC calls for cancelling student loan debt, and slams the "false narratives that student loan debt is for the privileged. What a ridiculous assertion. Do we really think that a billionaire's child is taking student loans? Come on!" (vid link)" / Twitter
She had a chart that stated $1.73 T of student-loan debt with 47.9 M Americans with that debt.

She concluded with yielding to "the distinguished Representative from the Bronx and Westchester, Jamaal Bowman."

The current moratorium on student-loan payments is set to end early next year.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "3⃣6⃣ million Americans are being crushed by $1⃣.8⃣ TRILLION in student loan debt. This is a crisis — and we must end it. I'm calling on @POTUS to immediately cancel at least $50,000 in student debt per borrower before payments restart in 2022. (vid link)" / Twitter
House-floor speech, with the same sign that AOC had.

She talked about how, during the pandemic, many people have been using the debt-repayment money to pay other bills, and restarting repayment would place a big burden -- repayment is often 1/3 of many borrowers' incomes. About 80% of repayers aren't in a position to buy homes, she says. She proposes canceling $50K of debt.

 

[lpetrich]

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "A crucial reminder of what's at stake. We don't merely have a student loan crisis or a medical debt crisis - we have a debt crisis. And if we want this generation or any other that comes after us to have a chance at a better life, we have to fix it. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Your Debt Is Someone Else’s Asset

Video by Molly Crabapple, Kim Boekbinder, Jim Batt

Covering thousands of years in just under seven minutes, “Your Debt Is Someone Else’s Asset” ends with a rousing vision of the future: a world after a jubilee, an ancient term for the abolition of debts and rebalancing of power between the rich and the poor.

A collaboration between The Intercept; artist Molly Crabapple and her creative partners at Sharp As Knives productions; and writer Astra Taylor, this short film invites us to understand our debt in new ways. Our monthly payments are a source of profit, a form of wealth transfer from struggling borrowers to the well-to-do. These profits are a source of power; debt is never just about money. In the United States, debt has long been used as a form of social control and a tool of white supremacy.

Yes, the same Molly Crabapple who did AOC's Green New Deal video: A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube

 

[Derec]

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "A crucial reminder of what's at stake. We don't merely have a student loan crisis or a medical debt crisis - we have a debt crisis. And if we want this generation or any other that comes after us to have a chance at a better life, we have to fix it. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Your Debt Is Someone Else’s Asset

Video by Molly Crabapple, Kim Boekbinder, Jim Batt

Covering thousands of years in just under seven minutes, “Your Debt Is Someone Else’s Asset” ends with a rousing vision of the future: a world after a jubilee, an ancient term for the abolition of debts and rebalancing of power between the rich and the poor.

So now they want all debts cancelled? If I loan money to somebody, I should be paid back - with interest. After all, I forego the use of my money so that somebody else can use it. Why should they just get to keep the money they borrowed?

A blanket cancellation of debt is a horrible idea, so it's hardly surprising the Idiot Squad is championing it.

 

[Derec]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "3⃣6⃣ million Americans are being crushed by $1⃣.8⃣ TRILLION in student loan debt. This is a crisis — and we must end it. I'm calling on @POTUS to immediately cancel at least $50,000 in student debt per borrower before payments restart in 2022. (vid link)" / Twitter

I do not see why federal government should pay off student loans for people who go to fancy, expensive private universities like Georgetown and Northwestern. Or took medical school debt and are now making $200-500k/a.

She talked about how, during the pandemic, many people have been using the debt-repayment money to pay other bills, and restarting repayment would place a big burden -- repayment is often 1/3 of many borrowers' incomes.

How often is "often"? I doubt more than low single digits pay 1/3 of their income for student loans.
As far as the repayment pause - it was always meant to be a temporary measure due to the economic shutdown due to the pandemic.
Restarting payments would mean additional cost, but people have known it was coming.

About 80% of repayers aren't in a position to buy homes, she says. She proposes canceling $50K of debt.

[Citation needed] on the 80%. And I think $50k is way too much. It's basically the average student debt, including of people who went to fancy private colleges and/or people who went to medical school and need no help.