Completely untrue. Those programs are nothing more than the loan being paid off by someone else in exchange for having to work a specific job in a specific place....
Wrong. (
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service#what-is-pslf)
Thanks for the link that fully supports my point. Only a very very tiny % of the jobs that would be available to a graduate meet the criteria of the program of being "employed full time by
certain public service employers."
IOW, the government specifies the tiny fraction of potential employers and jobs that are eligible. I am guessing that you are playing your usual strawman game of distortion and pretending that I meant you can only work for literally one single employer rather than a specific type of job, namely those the government narrowly defines as a "public service" job. That would explain why you went out of your way to delete the sentences in the middle of the paragraph between what you quoted above and below, which make it clear that I was NOT referring to a singular job working for institute A rather than B, but rather that a job the student must be highly "specific", as in confined to a job that fits within the tiny % of jobs working for "certain public service employers".
Here is what I said again, so you don't "accidentally" misconstrue it again:
the part of ronburgundy's statment that laughing dog deleted so he could build his strawman and ignore the real issue said:
The programs exits precisely because most people with relevant training refuse to task such jobs because are unpleasant and low paying for the amount of work. That is far closer to indentured servitude or slavery than the proposal. Such programs eliminate the vast majority of employment opportunities[not all but a single job], therefore significantly limit every positive aspect of employment (outside of doing an altruistic civic service), including limiting income by likely much more than the 4% in this proposal. IOW, those highly limited programs only apply to a tiny % of students with loans, and even when they apply are not at all better than the proposal.
So, are you going to pretend that these programs don't exist because they are the only way to attract enough people into taking these jobs? Why would they exist otherwise? If the eligible jobs were competitive in salary and other factors, the program would not exist, because they would have plenty of highly competent applicants without spending resources on paying off their loans for them that could otherwise be used directly on the needy people who the public service jobs are supposed to be helping? If you can't grasp that simple logic of efficiency and its relation to getting the help where needed, then you should be an government administration, because your have the "mind" to fit right in.
Also, the question and my comment is completely about the overall net impact and whether it is worse than the overall net impact of the current student loan system. Thus, your attempt to find isolated small % of instances where the result is worse is s red herring, even if that example was valid, which it is not. No one is arguing that the proposal be the sole method by which education is funded. It is merely another option that could be chosen by people when it is superior to other options or other options are not available (such as the loan forgiveness programs you refer to which are not available for the vast majority of students in the majority of majors).
Wrong on the facts. And your conclusions require unstated and unverifiable assumptions.
I stated exactly what my assumptions are and they are supported by every relevant fact of human economic behavior and decision making. You have provided not a single fact that contradicts my point, no even attempted an argument to support your claim that these loan forgiveness programs produce superior outcomes to the proposal.
Because who will wind up poor and unemployed at any point over the next 15 years (5 during the education and the 10 afterward) is highly unpredictable.
Companies (like all people) don't actually know with much accuracy who hardship and bad luck will befall. Just like banks don't know what people will default on their loans. The companies will make some $ in "interest" the aggregate averaged over all the students they support, even though some % of students will not have to pay back the cost of their education.
Companies do not lend to just anyone. They lend to good risks. And they lend to earn a competitive return.
Everyone they lend to, they do not know in advance that they will make $ on the loan.
They often lose $, just like any financial risk taker. They know for certain that they will lose $ on some of the people they lend to, but don't know who. They do it anyway, because the net gain over all those they lend to is positive.
Do you think people with BAs in Medieval English Lit. from Podunk U would be the same risk as people with BS in electrical engineering from MIT?
OF course not, but that has zero relevance to the discussion. As you've done with my posts, you've built a fictional strawman of the actual proposal, arguing against it as though it proposes to be the sole form of funding for higher education. It doesn't. Student's who can't get a company to support their desired major can have other existing means of funding. This proposal is a means to fund college education the portion of college education that companies view as beneficial either to the themselves or more generally as part of their philanthropy (even if only for tax-deduction reasons). Even often commercially useless (and often intellectually suspect) majors in the Humanities would have some limited return value for companies to sponsor. IF these disciplines actually have a shortage of professionals, then that means available faculty positions, which means a return on investment for the sponsoring company. Even if the student winds up working a bookstore after getting a philosophy degree and pays less than the cost of the education, the loss can be an advantageous write-off for the sponsor. In sum, while the proposed program would favor commercially useful majors, it would only fully exclude majors that are such an economic loss that the odds are they are either intellectually vacuous or whatever limit service to society they provide is already overfilled by existing people in those fields.
That tethering of this route of support to societal utility and future income is a good thing for the student and the whole of society. If a field really is socially valuable and yet has zero economic return, then we can still fund it via other means like the student loans you think are so much better anyway.
I never claimed that their were not some circumstances were the proposed option would be worse. That would be irrelevant to any meaningful discussion since no one is suggesting forcing the proposed option on anyone. Those for whom it would clearly be worse, would choose not to take that option. Simple. ...
I agree your analysis is simple.
They logic supporting my conclusion is simple to follow, yet you seem incapable or unwilling.
But individuals are not always able to see what type of loan structure is clearly worse.
A fact which applies no more to a world with the proposed option than without it. Student loans are often a terrible financial idea, as are the loan forgiveness programs you blindly and baselessly believe are inherently good. The proposal merely presents another option that has a much bigger potential up-side for most students (nothing to repay if you have a bad outcome) than downside (a bigger payback than other options, but only if you can afford it due being lucky enough to have better outcomes than average). For students able to make the best choice for themselves, it only helps and does that hurt them. For students not capable of such a choice, then they are no worse off than if they were incapably making a choice without this option. More importantly, those incapable students are precisely the one's most likely to wind up with less than average incomes, so their payback under the proposal will be the least and that will be their best option. Thus, given them that option at least allows some of them to benefit from picking it, even if via dumb luck. Basically, for all the people that most need another option (those that can't figure out the best option themselves, and those that wind up with a low income for whatever reason), the proposed system is either a huge positive or at worst they are in the same position as without the option.
Also, the problem of education funding is the problem of crushing debt for people who don't wind up earning enough to pay for it....
No. The problem of education funding is crushing debt regardless of the extent it is repaid.
So, you claim that people who stay in debt forever and cannot catch up even to the accruing interest on their loans or who default and destroy their credit is no bigger a problem than people who easily and/or immediately pay off their student debts while still being able to save because they have more than enough income to do so? The phrase "crushing debt" only refers to the former. No reasonable person thinks the latter is a problem at all and by definition has nothing to do with "crushing debt". If the proposal is especially helpful to the former groups while costing the latter high income group a bit more, then it addresses the problem of crushing debt from education funding very well and far better than any existing system in the US.
Wrong as usual. Only people that wind up making over a million dollars in the first 10 years after graduation would wind up paying notably more under the proposal than a traditional loan route, so only they would be the one's subsidizing those that cannot repay a loan. Such persons are in the top 5% of all earners just in their first 10 years of employment, not even counting how this predicts being in the top 1% in subsequent years. Thus my term of "rich" is quite reasonable and apt, and your tiresome efforts at red-herring arguments is once more exposed.
Nope. Your result requires specific unrealistic assumptions about the amount of loan and the implied rates of interest.
The average graduate in 2015 will wind up paying $35,000 in student loans. $35,000 is 4% $875,000, which means $87,500 in yearly income every one of the first 10 years. That is already more than close enough to my initial estimate to qualify as "rich".
But, that is only average loans. Students usually pay additional money out of pocket in addition to what they pay through loans. Even if they only pay another $1000 per year out of pocket over 5 years, that gets to my estimate of $100,000 per year or $1 million in the first 10 years, which $40k = 4% of.
Not to mention, the people earning that kind of $ right out of college tend to go to better, more prestigious and expensive schools, and to take majors where tuition is higher (Business, science, and engineering typically have higher tuition costs and pricey extra "lab" fees). Thus, their loans are likely closer to or over $50k, meaning that unless they earn over $125,000 every year for the first decade, they will still be better off under the proposal than with student loans.
So, as always in our exchanges (even when we happen to agree in our conclusions), I have all the facts, stats, and logic on my side, and you have nothing but blind faith and rabid ideology.
Again, in the actual context of the discussion at hand (hint: semantic context determines meaning or words), "at all worse" does not imply that some rich people won't wind up paying more to subsidize those the poor. The comment refers to whether the overall net impact is worse in terms of its impact on the problem in question (people unable to repay loans and going into debt and poor credit).
We are not in Wonderland and you are not the Cheshire cat.
The fact that you feel like a baffled and confused Alice doesn't mean that I am speaking in riddles, only that you're emotional faith is acting like a "drink me" drug and impeding your ability to apply honest reason and the principles of discourse to making this a productive conversation. That said, the Cheshire Cat spoke a trite but true sentiment when he said that "every adventure requires a first step." Your first step out of the darkness of dogma is to want to actually understand that which seems at odds with what you prefer to be true. Try to actually take on the clearly intended sentiment of others, rather than to bully the small insignificant strawmen of your own design.
Getting the "rich" to pay more is better achieved via progressive taxation with well-defined limits as to the "rich" than through some harebrained scheme of loan repayment based on the handwaved and ridiculous view that anyone who can repay a student loan within 10 years is "rich" and deserves to pay to more.
First, and as always, you have completely misrepresented my argument. I never implied anything close to the claim that "anyone who can repay a student loan within 10 years is rich". That is why you didn't quote me saying that but only said it yourself, then stuck my single word of "rich" into the claim of your own creation. So, once again in futility, I point out that "rich" referred not to those that paid back their loans, but only to those small top 1% of earners that, under the proposal, would wind up overpaying for their education to the point where that excess covered the large % of students that wound up underpaying for theirs.
Second, how the "rich" who pay for the poor are defined is extremely well specified under the proposal in mathematical terms. Only people for whom 4% of their first 10 year income is greater than their loans would have otherwise been wind up paying any extra that goes toward covering those who earn less.
Its a sensible system against which you have failed to show a single valid critique, though mostly because you've been attacking ghost of your own imagination.
As the facts and math shows, the vast majority of students would pay much less under this system than with loans. Unlike blanket subsidizing of any student for any major, this proposal would tether the number of funding opportunities to empirically substantiated economic and social benefits of the chosen education, yet do so without any prohibitions on the type of education a person could pursue. It wouldn't restrict choice, but rather give the greater reward of more funding opportunities to choices that have demonstrable merit and benefit. I realize that you might be threatened by any system that considers intellectual merit, but it is a rather sensible and ethical thing for society to consider in determining how to employ its finite resources.
