US student loans grotesquely high

[Jarhyn]

What educated people give back to society is the momentum education adds to the society, plain and simple.

Education is it's own reward through the progress it brings.

Phase 1: debt forgiveness: We already got what we wanted -- information into eyes and ears.

Phase 2: educational access guarantees: everyone gets a shot every 7 years at continuing their education at any level. Fuck it up, fail out, see you in 7; otherwise, keep learning as long as you keep not failing on average.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We don't need more experts in sociology, political science, history, economics, law, music, ethnic studies, women's studies, Black studies, Eskimo studies, philosophy, community organizing, theology, education (except science education), business, literature, . . . .

No one even agrees what an "expert" is anymore in these subject areas. None of these can claim credit for the vast progress in well-being which has happened in recent centuries -- they are the results of progress, not the cause of any progress.

And yet, as we march back to the Dark Ages, the call to torch the humanities and social sciences roars all the louder. As indeed happened going into the first Dark Ages.

No it didn't. There was more investment in the social sciences and humanities and philosophy and religion and art and poetry than there was in the natural sciences. If there was a general decline in all education, that decline was greater in the natural sciences than in the humanities and social sciences.

 

[Politesse]

We don't need more experts in sociology, political science, history, economics, law, music, ethnic studies, women's studies, Black studies, Eskimo studies, philosophy, community organizing, theology, education (except science education), business, literature, . . . .

No one even agrees what an "expert" is anymore in these subject areas. None of these can claim credit for the vast progress in well-being which has happened in recent centuries -- they are the results of progress, not the cause of any progress.

And yet, as we march back to the Dark Ages, the call to torch the humanities and social sciences roars all the louder. As indeed happened going into the first Dark Ages.

No it didn't. There was more investment in the social sciences and humanities and philosophy and religion and art and poetry than there was in the natural sciences. If there was a general decline in all education, that decline was greater in the natural sciences than in the humanities and social sciences.

This is not accurate. The social sciences were all but dormant in Εurope between the 5th and 17th centuries; no meaningful new theory was derived or applied in all of that time. And while the arts continued to flourish after a fashion, it was under the sponsorship and rigid control of the church.

 

[Jarhyn]

ITT: people complaining that the arrow of time affords more people more opportunities and more recognition of the ethical imperative to provide those opportunities without unnecessary "strings" attached.

I repeat: a Sword of Damocles hangs over the head of the person who dares demand open access to knowledge, the spectre of debt.

The cost some have paid does not justify continuing to demand that cost of others.

For exactly the same reasons that it is unreasonable to demand people be slaves before they are freed on account of the person laying the demands having suffered enslavement before being free, it is unreasonable to demand continued bondage of others (namely relating here to the bond of debt) merely on account of the fact the person so complaining was bound and found freedom.

Their prior captivity to debt does not justify other's captivity to debt.

People can scream and moan all they want, but the principle carries. I hold the principle that it is not just to hold bond on a person merely because bond was held on myself; and that I can replace "myself" and "a person" with any other person(s) and the principle holds true. I can replace the bond with any bond at all.

Past bondage of self does not justify current bondage of others, and pushing people to suffer merely because you have suffered is EVIL.

 

[Toni]

Why does this matter? Students who are hampered by student debt are less likely to pursue graduate degrees or professional degrees, meaning that we will, over time, have a less well educated population. This means fewer doctors, architects, engineers, researchers and yes, college professors.

The population already has too much formal tertiary education. It's why employers can now ask for employees to have a degree for jobs that do not require a degree and did not require a degree in decades prior.

Also, as long as the fields you mention continue to pay well, there will not be a shortage of people in them. In fact, too many people want to be college professors right now, which is why universities can afford to do what they do to young aspiring academics.

Ah, yes. Why should anyone know or understand , much less appreciate or enjoy something that they or better yet, their employers cannot turn a dime on? Anything more might give workers ideas. Everyone knows that ideas are dangerous things. Better to drink than to think! Let’s all just be comfortably numb.

You are confusing education with job training.

I'm not doing any such thing.

If somebody wants to pursue a degree for leisure, that's their business. But taxpayers should not pay for other people's expensive leisure pursuits.

Taxpayers should pay for an employer’s job training? Please. Business gets plenty of tax payer support already.

No. Can you can point out where I said or implied that?

Taxpayers, after all, are…people. Human beings who surely have the right to learn as much as they can and desire to learn.

What are you afraid of? A population who can think?

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that failing to give taxpayer money to people who failed to pay back debts they promised to pay back shows that I am afraid of a population that can 'think'?

I can explain it to you (and I think I have done so) but I cannot understand it for you.

 

[Toni]

Student Loan Debt Forgiveness is a wealth transfer from the poor to the middle class. Of course Democrats support upward wealth transfers.

I don't believe that the majority of Democrats support loan forgiveness without having those who receive forgiveness giving something back to society. But, you do have a point and that is why so many people who either paid back their loans or never had the opportunity to go to college don't support loan forgiveness. That is why I suggested that forgiveness could be possible in return for working in an area where there is a dire need. The best example I can think of this morning is teaching in the public schools. There is a serious shortage of teachers and we desperately need to improve our public schools. If a person has a large amount of debt and they need help paying it back, let them pay it back by teaching for a number of years or doing something else that is vitally important to society. The possibilities are endless.

Of course there should be exceptions, but that should be decided via an application as to why a particular person needs help paying off their debt. There are plenty of ways to help people who have made poor decisions when it comes to debt. If our government can't come up with better ideas than mine, or better ideas than simply giving everyone loan forgiveness, then we really do have a very incompetent government. Imo, one of the biggest problems is that one party refuses to even discuss things like this and seems very unwilling to compromise. Actually, some on both sides need to learn to compromise. It used to work that way to some extent when I was much younge. I'm not optimistic that we can return to a more reasonable society. We can't keep hating each other and refusing to listen or even consider each other's points and expect to have a successful country. Maybe it's too late for that, but I hope not.

There are already programs for loan forgiveness in limited career paths: some areas of medicine, some areas of teaching and some areas of law. If you are willing to practice medicine or teach or serve as a public defender for 10 years (at sub market wages), and if you continue to pay the interest on your student loans, your loans are generally forgiven. Note: During the Trump administration, he wanted to remove even this limited loan forgiveness. Currently, I know someone who is working as a public defender in a mostly rural county in flyover country who was just relating to me that within his office, among all of them, they knew exactly one person, ever, who managed to stick it out to get loan forgiveness. Let me tell you, this is a tough, tough job, full of stress, and generally dealing with very unpleasant clients who are assigned to you--you have no choice. Almost all of the cases before a public defender involve substance abuse or are substance abuse adjacent (domestic assault being one of the major adjacent criminal offenses). This is work the person I was talking to very, very much believes in doing and in fact, was the reason they went into law. But they are not making enough money to be able to pay off their debt out of their wages. The only way the could pay off their debt is to stick it out the 10 years, with low pay and tremendous stress, or leave for a high paying corporate job, continue to live as they are now and use all of the extra money they earn to pay off their law school debt. There just isn't extra, nor will there be extra to buy a home or to be able to afford to take time off or reduce time so that they could raise a family. Rents are as high as a mortgage. You just don't need to come up with a down payment to rent...

So, suppose you are one of the lucky kids who graduate from college with minimal student debt (say, only $50K) and an 8 year old car. You'd really like to go to grad school or law school or med school (pick one) but doing so will mean that you incur at a minimum $100K in additional debt. So, at age 25 or 26, you have a 12 year old car and (minimum) $150K in student debt as you enter the labor market. If you take a job in an underserved area, you will be making under $60K/year, out of which you must pay rent and hope that your car lasts another few years. If you are a woman, the earliest you could hope to be able to afford to have a child is your mid-30's. If you are lucky. Or marry/partner up with someone with a more lucrative career or who inherited a big wad of cash.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination or high level math skills to see that this will lead to a generation with the well educated adults opting out of childrearing altogether. And it has. Which means that most of the children are being raised by people with less education--and their kids will have the choice of either choosing to be less educated and raise a family or repeat the same cycle as the generation that pursues higher educational/professional levels and... opts out of raising a family because of student debt.

Of course, another path would be to pursue trades: become a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, etc. Those are fairly lucrative careers but your body is pretty beat up by the time you hit 60.

 

[Metaphor]

Why does this matter? Students who are hampered by student debt are less likely to pursue graduate degrees or professional degrees, meaning that we will, over time, have a less well educated population. This means fewer doctors, architects, engineers, researchers and yes, college professors.

The population already has too much formal tertiary education. It's why employers can now ask for employees to have a degree for jobs that do not require a degree and did not require a degree in decades prior.

Also, as long as the fields you mention continue to pay well, there will not be a shortage of people in them. In fact, too many people want to be college professors right now, which is why universities can afford to do what they do to young aspiring academics.

Ah, yes. Why should anyone know or understand , much less appreciate or enjoy something that they or better yet, their employers cannot turn a dime on? Anything more might give workers ideas. Everyone knows that ideas are dangerous things. Better to drink than to think! Let’s all just be comfortably numb.

You are confusing education with job training.

I'm not doing any such thing.

If somebody wants to pursue a degree for leisure, that's their business. But taxpayers should not pay for other people's expensive leisure pursuits.

Taxpayers should pay for an employer’s job training? Please. Business gets plenty of tax payer support already.

No. Can you can point out where I said or implied that?

Taxpayers, after all, are…people. Human beings who surely have the right to learn as much as they can and desire to learn.

What are you afraid of? A population who can think?

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that failing to give taxpayer money to people who failed to pay back debts they promised to pay back shows that I am afraid of a population that can 'think'?

I can explain it to you (and I think I have done so) but I cannot understand it for you.

I thought so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most student loans will provide the recipient enough income to repay them.

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

 

[Toni]

Most student loans will provide the recipient enough income to repay them.

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

To repay the lender? Maybe. To repay the lender and live decently? That’s a bigger question.

It’s much worse, of course, with the scam ‘universities’ but any new PhD., or JD and a lot of MDs struggle for years under the burden of debt. And so do plenty of people with th just BAs or BS’s.

 

[Toni]

Why does this matter? Students who are hampered by student debt are less likely to pursue graduate degrees or professional degrees, meaning that we will, over time, have a less well educated population. This means fewer doctors, architects, engineers, researchers and yes, college professors.

The population already has too much formal tertiary education. It's why employers can now ask for employees to have a degree for jobs that do not require a degree and did not require a degree in decades prior.

Also, as long as the fields you mention continue to pay well, there will not be a shortage of people in them. In fact, too many people want to be college professors right now, which is why universities can afford to do what they do to young aspiring academics.

Ah, yes. Why should anyone know or understand , much less appreciate or enjoy something that they or better yet, their employers cannot turn a dime on? Anything more might give workers ideas. Everyone knows that ideas are dangerous things. Better to drink than to think! Let’s all just be comfortably numb.

You are confusing education with job training.

I'm not doing any such thing.

If somebody wants to pursue a degree for leisure, that's their business. But taxpayers should not pay for other people's expensive leisure pursuits.

Taxpayers should pay for an employer’s job training? Please. Business gets plenty of tax payer support already.

No. Can you can point out where I said or implied that?

Taxpayers, after all, are…people. Human beings who surely have the right to learn as much as they can and desire to learn.

What are you afraid of? A population who can think?

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that failing to give taxpayer money to people who failed to pay back debts they promised to pay back shows that I am afraid of a population that can 'think'?

I can explain it to you (and I think I have done so) but I cannot understand it for you.

I thought so.

Apparently not enough.

 

[Metaphor]

Why does this matter? Students who are hampered by student debt are less likely to pursue graduate degrees or professional degrees, meaning that we will, over time, have a less well educated population. This means fewer doctors, architects, engineers, researchers and yes, college professors.

The population already has too much formal tertiary education. It's why employers can now ask for employees to have a degree for jobs that do not require a degree and did not require a degree in decades prior.

Also, as long as the fields you mention continue to pay well, there will not be a shortage of people in them. In fact, too many people want to be college professors right now, which is why universities can afford to do what they do to young aspiring academics.

Ah, yes. Why should anyone know or understand , much less appreciate or enjoy something that they or better yet, their employers cannot turn a dime on? Anything more might give workers ideas. Everyone knows that ideas are dangerous things. Better to drink than to think! Let’s all just be comfortably numb.

You are confusing education with job training.

I'm not doing any such thing.

If somebody wants to pursue a degree for leisure, that's their business. But taxpayers should not pay for other people's expensive leisure pursuits.

Taxpayers should pay for an employer’s job training? Please. Business gets plenty of tax payer support already.

No. Can you can point out where I said or implied that?

Taxpayers, after all, are…people. Human beings who surely have the right to learn as much as they can and desire to learn.

What are you afraid of? A population who can think?

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that failing to give taxpayer money to people who failed to pay back debts they promised to pay back shows that I am afraid of a population that can 'think'?

I can explain it to you (and I think I have done so) but I cannot understand it for you.

I thought so.

Apparently not enough.

On the contrary, Toni. I gave your response too much thought and attention already.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most student loans will provide the recipient enough income to repay them.

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

Most student education will provide better benefits to society if the jobs people take are not filtered on the basis of who can make enough money to pay back a loan.

I can think of many situations wherein the actual benefit to society is MUCH higher when humanitarian roles can be pursued even when it takes much time to provide the education to do so.

If I can take a job making two thirds what I do today simply because I do not have a debt burden, I would take jobs that pay less and contribute more. I would work more readily for start-up companies. I would more readily invest my time and money in personal projects. I would even consider taking a job in academia.

Maybe I would even take that extra money and actually build something important.

When the question is not "how much money can I make?" But rather "how much can I discover and share?" Better results happen.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Most student loans will provide the recipient enough income to repay them.

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

Depends on what you major in. If you major in Electrical Engineering, sure. If you major in Feminist Studies, you will be a drain on society and never pay back the loans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most student loans will provide the recipient enough income to repay them.

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

To repay the lender? Maybe. To repay the lender and live decently? That’s a bigger question.

It’s much worse, of course, with the scam ‘universities’ but any new PhD., or JD and a lot of MDs struggle for years under the burden of debt. And so do plenty of people with th just BAs or BS’s.

Whether it's a burden or not isn't an issue. The question is what is their standard of living with their degree vs what it would have been if they didn't go to the university in the first place.

 

[Toni]

Most student loans will provide the recipient enough income to repay them.

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

To repay the lender? Maybe. To repay the lender and live decently? That’s a bigger question.

It’s much worse, of course, with the scam ‘universities’ but any new PhD., or JD and a lot of MDs struggle for years under the burden of debt. And so do plenty of people with th just BAs or BS’s.

Whether it's a burden or not isn't an issue. The question is what is their standard of living with their degree vs what it would have been if they didn't go to the university in the first place.

I think it depends on how you look at it.

People of my generation could pay for state universities on summer wages and after school jobs with maybe a little work study and small student loans thrown in. We paid my husband’s small student loan with ease, even while still in grad school. Now, a student loan payment is more than a car payment, and can rival a months rent or mortgage payment. Not many jobs right out of college will cover two months’ rent plus other living expenses.

Do you not want people to become teachers? Librarians? Social workers? Nurses?

What will happen to their wages if everyone gets a degree in engineering?

We need a well educated population. Employers can do their own damn job training.

 

[Derec]

There are already programs for loan forgiveness in limited career paths: some areas of medicine, some areas of teaching and some areas of law. If you are willing to practice medicine or teach or serve as a public defender for 10 years (at sub market wages), and if you continue to pay the interest on your student loans, your loans are generally forgiven.

The question is, why should somebody who goes into ortho or plastics or derm at a big city clinic and is making big bucks get student loan forgiveness? Or somebody going into corporate law? The forgiveness is there to serve as an incentive for people to go into rural family medicine so not all doctors there are DOs who could not get any better residency during the Match. Or go be public defenders so not everybody at the PD office got their degree from the University of American Samoa Law School.

Go Land Crabs!

General student loan cancellation would make these incentives meaningless.
Also there is another option for cancellation currently - if you do not make that much compared to your loan payments, you can go on an income-driven repayment plan. If you stick with those for 20-25 years, your remaining balance gets forgiven.

Note: During the Trump administration, he wanted to remove even this limited loan forgiveness. Currently, I know someone who is working as a public defender in a mostly rural county in flyover country who was just relating to me that within his office, among all of them, they knew exactly one person, ever, who managed to stick it out to get loan forgiveness.

What did the rest do? Took well-paying lawyer jobs so they can easily repay their loans anyway?

So, suppose you are one of the lucky kids who graduate from college with minimal student debt (say, only $50K) and an 8 year old car.

$50k is hardly "minimal student debt" for just undergraduate. And an 8 year old car is barely broken in.

You'd really like to go to grad school or law school or med school (pick one) but doing so will mean that you incur at a minimum $100K in additional debt. So, at age 25 or 26, you have a 12 year old car and (minimum) $150K in student debt as you enter the labor market. If you take a job in an underserved area, you will be making under $60K/year, out of which you must pay rent and hope that your car lasts another few years.

Well, sure, during residency. But after a few years of that even rural family medicine pays six figures.

Doctors and lawyers are some of the most handsomely compensated professions. They definitely do not need a blanket student debt forgiveness!

If you are a woman, the earliest you could hope to be able to afford to have a child is your mid-30's. If you are lucky. Or marry/partner up with someone with a more lucrative career or who inherited a big wad of cash.

And if you are a man, you can magically afford a kid at a younger age?

It doesn't take a lot of imagination or high level math skills to see that this will lead to a generation with the well educated adults opting out of childrearing altogether. And it has. Which means that most of the children are being raised by people with less education--and their kids will have the choice of either choosing to be less educated and raise a family or repeat the same cycle as the generation that pursues higher educational/professional levels and... opts out of raising a family because of student debt.

So you are saying we should cancel student debt for extremely well-paid professionals because they might decide to have kids a few years earlier then? With all due respect, that's the silliest arguments for student loan cancellation I have heard since the last time AOC opened her pretty mouth on the issue.

Of course, another path would be to pursue trades: become a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, etc. Those are fairly lucrative careers but your body is pretty beat up by the time you hit 60.

Trades indeed would be a good option for many. You know, instead of incurring a $50k for an art history degree or something similarly useless.

 

[Derec]

The problem comes from the cases where the education doesn't lead to income. A lot of scam universities and a lot of people who took degrees with little job opportunities.

If you are on an income-driven-repayment plan, your payments are limited (sometimes to 0) and you get your balance forgiven after 20-25 years of making payments. So there is already an out for such a situation.

 

[Derec]

To repay the lender? Maybe. To repay the lender and live decently? That’s a bigger question.

Define "decently"? So you drive that 8 year old car a few years longer before you can afford that Benz. Is that such a tragedy?

 

[Derec]

If I can take a job making two thirds what I do today simply because I do not have a debt burden, I would take jobs that pay less and contribute more. I would work more readily for start-up companies. I would more readily invest my time and money in personal projects. I would even consider taking a job in academia.

Than go to a relatively affordable state school instead of taking more debt to go to a private one. AOC would not still have a balance had she gone to SUNY.

 

[Derec]

Do you not want people to become teachers? Librarians? Social workers? Nurses?
What will happen to their wages if everyone gets a degree in engineering?

That will never happen because degrees in engineering are hard while degrees in (for example) English or social work are easy.
That's one reason why there is such a relative overabundance of English degrees, even graduate ones. We had that whole discussion in an old thread on adjunct professors. Do you remember it?

That's also the reason not all secondary teachers make the same. Supply and demand.
How many English or art history PhDs does a society need anyway? So why are we graduating so many that end up asking us "do you want fries with that?"

By the way, nursing does not really belong on your list. It's not the easiest major (although there are more levels to nursing than you can shake the Staff of Aesculapius at) and a tough job so there isn't going to be an oversupply like with English majors.

We need a well educated population. Employers can do their own damn job training.

Sure. But a lot of what passes for education these days is not really much.