Student Loan Forgiveness
I say forgive and forget. The Dems need to counter the R talking point that this will cause x-y-z population to be paying for college educated people, when in fact, since taxes won't be going up for it, no one will be paying for it, essentially. (magic money!) Though to be fair, I'm not exactly sure how the financing will work. Will the feds bail out the private lenders?
The bigger problem is that since BBB never passed and free college is still not part of the mix, students will continue to accumulate debt going forward, unless the feds drastically increase tuition support.
If we can find billions of dollars to help Ukraine, we can very well forgive students loans in this country.
Do all of you who support this forgiveness see it as a one-shot? Or an ongoing program?
jimmurphy said:
Do all of you who support this forgiveness see it as a one-shot? Or an ongoing program?
I don’t think constantly forgiving student debt is sustainable. Tuition costs have risen in ridiculous fashion. I don’t know how to bring that under control.
mrincredible said:
I don’t think constantly forgiving student debt is sustainable. Tuition costs have risen in ridiculous fashion. I don’t know how to bring that under control.
I agree with this.
What makes now special? Why should this particular set of borrowers be forgiven their debt?
It’s one thing if they were bilked by all the Trump Universities out there, for-profit colleges. Quite another in my mind if they signed on the dotted line, eyes wide-open and got the education they expected.
A main concern I have is that once goods and services get widely subsidized, costs tend to rise even more.
You wanna talk public service, even volunteerism, in exchange for forgiveness, I’m all ears.
We offer fee education to everyone from Kindergarten to 12th grade. I went to a College founded as "The Free Academy" in the middle of the 19th Century. We paid a registration fee of under $50.00 a semester and no tuition. I went to a State Law School where tuition was $500.00 a semester.
College Education should be totally funded by the taxpayers. The entire population benefits from an educated population. Isn't that the reason we have had free education through 12th grade since the 19th Century?
STANV said:
We offer fee education to everyone from Kindergarten to 12th grade. I went to a College founded as "The Free Academy" in the middle of the 19th Century. We paid a registration fee of under $50.00 a semester and no tuition. I went to a State Law School where tuition was $500.00 a semester.
College Education should be totally funded by the taxpayers. The entire population benefits from an educated population. Isn't that the reason we have had free education through 12th grade since the 19th Century?
Yes.
12th grade was OK in the day. Just as 8th grade was before that.
Now, in technologically advanced societies going 16 years would be appropriate. Many other first world countries recognize the advantages given them by having a highly educated citizenry. Consequently they heavily subsidize their college students.
Republican politicians will oppose this, their usual smearing of free or college subsidized education as socialism. A dumb and stupid public is their red meat.
mrincredible said:
jimmurphy said:
Do all of you who support this forgiveness see it as a one-shot? Or an ongoing program?
I don’t think constantly forgiving student debt is sustainable. Tuition costs have risen in ridiculous fashion. I don’t know how to bring that under control.
Yet, other countries manage to not impose heavy debt on their students. Its not forgiveness but subsidies or simply free education.
You want it under control, then do what they do.
STANV said:
We offer fee education to everyone from Kindergarten to 12th grade. I went to a College founded as "The Free Academy" in the middle of the 19th Century. We paid a registration fee of under $50.00 a semester and no tuition. I went to a State Law School where tuition was $500.00 a semester.
College Education should be totally funded by the taxpayers. The entire population benefits from an educated population. Isn't that the reason we have had free education through 12th grade since the 19th Century?
I went to Seton Hall as an undergrad. And even at a private university, my first year tuition was only $1250 a semester and I received about $500 a semester in federal and state grants.
Forgiving student loans would be a good thing to do for an entire generation of students whose education has been a long term economic burden. But it should also be done while making public colleges and universities as affordable for future students as they were for previous generations.
RTrent said:
Yet, other countries manage to not impose heavy debt on their students. Its not forgiveness but subsidies or simply free education.
You want it under control, then do what they do.
Which countries that have as high a percentage of college graduates as the U.S. (50 percent of adults ages 25 to 64) don’t impose a heavy deb burden? For one set of comparisons, the average student debt is roughly $32,000 in the U.S. and Japan, $56,000 in England, and $20,000 in Canada.
Meanwhile, only 32 percent of German adults have a college degree; the rate is 41 in France and Spain and 42 in Denmark.
The OECD chart I used for guidance, after setting it for tertiary education results only:
https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/adult-education-level.htm#indicator-chart
DaveSchmidt said:
Which countries that have as high a percentage of college graduates as the U.S. (50 percent of adults ages 25 to 64) don’t impose a heavy deb burden? For one set of comparisons, the average student debt is roughly $32,000 in the U.S. and Japan, $56,000 in England, and $20,000 in Canada.
Meanwhile, only 32 percent of German adults have a college degree; the rate is 41 in France and Spain and 42 in Denmark.
The OECD chart I used for guidance, after setting it for tertiary education results only:
https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/adult-education-level.htm#indicator-chart
In Germany apprenticeship is often a replacement for college. Automotive, building trades, governmental service apprentices live very nice lives, better than many if not most U.S. college graduates.
For example, you do not have to be a college graduate to join the German Federal police. You need to be a citizen, be criminal record free and be at least 16 years old. They can join at 16 or older and then "apprentice" for about three years of training before graduating to full fledged officer.
About 70 to 80% of the German public is either college or apprenticeships. And they are not debt burdened. If anything, apprentices are salaried. Years of being paid while learning a skill or job.
Here we're not setup offer apprenticeships to a large segment of our population. Sure, we have building trades like electrician or plumber but only open for a few. Which leaves the choice of college or not. In our society, being advanced, college education is almost a requirement for managers and professionals. 12th grade education is usually relegated for retail, warehousing or factory type jobs. For even a bookkeeper type job more than HS may now be required.
RTrent said:
In Germany apprenticeship is often a replacement for college.
So rather than subsidies or free education for college, as you mentioned earlier, it sounds like you believe that more apprenticeship opportunitites, like Germany’s, are what we should be modeling in the U.S.
I'm not sure how apprenticeship is supposed to work in the US although a few years ago their was an ad on MOL by someone seeking a carpentry apprentice.
So perhaps we should have publicly funded vocational schools. But I still believe everyone could benefit from at least a year's college level Liberal Arts education.
Dave, migraine continues today and I’m finding it hard to convert what I’m reading in the chart to words.
Here, trades and technical colleges (TAFE sector which includes hairdressing, business studies and mechanics etc - anything less than a full degree) counts as ‘further education’ or ‘higher education’ and is industry equivalent to university/academic education. Often, you’ll still find subsidies and scholarships for regional students in both sectors, based on merit, and for all students, again merit-based and awarded by all kinds of trusts, organisations etc.
Non-citizens pay substantially higher tuition fees, and have done for at least 30 years.
In 1972-mid 1990s Uni tuition was basically free or very low cost (I believe I just paid admin fees, textbooks, & student union fees for use of extra facilities). Conservative govts didn’t believe so many people ‘deserve’ Uni education and decreased Uni funding while increasing fees.
This has also lead to a marked decrease in our academic research, sadly.
STANV said:
So perhaps we should have publicly funded vocational schools. But I still believe everyone could benefit from at least a year's college level Liberal Arts education.
Yes, we should have many apprenticeships opportunities.
I'd prefer a German cop with their three years of training anytime over an American college educated cop. German cops are armed like us but there is a large disparity in police shootings and abuse compared to us.
To me German college and apprenticeship are similar. One is learning in a classroom from teachers, the other is mentored teaching for their vocation. Both subsidized.
I don't agree that everyone benefits from at least a year of Liberal Arts. I'd take a plumber anytime over some who are college educated like Cruz or DeSantis, from elite colleges at that.
RTrent said:
STANV said:
So perhaps we should have publicly funded vocational schools. But I still believe everyone could benefit from at least a year's college level Liberal Arts education.
Yes, we should have many apprenticeships opportunities.
I'd prefer a German cop with their three years of training anytime over an American college educated cop. German cops are armed like us but there is a large disparity in police shootings and abuse compared to us.
To me German college and apprenticeship are similar. One is learning in a classroom from teachers, the other is mentored teaching for their vocation. Both subsidized.
I don't agree that everyone benefits from at least a year of Liberal Arts. I'd take a plumber anytime over some who are college educated like Cruz or DeSantis, from elite colleges at that.
Yep. If the government is to pay for education, that education should have a purpose - STEM, the trades, nursing, teaching. I don't support public funding for education for the sake of education.
Moreover, student loans should not be exempt from bankruptcy proceedings. That kind of guarantee is one of several reasons why loans are out of control and the cost of college has skyrocketed.
drummerboy said:
I say forgive and forget. The Dems need to counter the R talking point that this will cause x-y-z population to be paying for college educated people, when in fact, since taxes won't be going up for it, no one will be paying for it, essentially. (magic money!) Though to be fair, I'm not exactly sure how the financing will work. Will the feds bail out the private lenders?
I refuse to believe that there is not a ledger somewhere in the federal government listing college loan payments as an asset. Of course the money will need to be made up somewhere.
It seems to me the root of the argument here is that it is better for the country to pay for a 19 year old to attend college than spend pay that same money for some other career path. For example what about buying a pickup truck, a trailer, and a bunch of landscaping equipment? Or a bunch of computers and a CNC machine? I think we need to have this discussion and create alternate funded paths before we go wiping out tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Let's not do something that chooses winners and losers.
I'm in favor of giving some assistance to those with college debt but we have to do it in a way that does not make more voters hate us. To do this right, make it more than a one-of it's going to take time and legitimate debate. I think the right thing for now is to continue payment deferrals, or reducing loan interest rates perhaps even to 0.
upthecreek said:
drummerboy said:
I say forgive and forget. The Dems need to counter the R talking point that this will cause x-y-z population to be paying for college educated people, when in fact, since taxes won't be going up for it, no one will be paying for it, essentially. (magic money!) Though to be fair, I'm not exactly sure how the financing will work. Will the feds bail out the private lenders?
I refuse to believe that there is not a ledger somewhere in the federal government listing college loan payments as an asset. Of course the money will need to be made up somewhere.
Whether it needs to be made up and whether it will cost anyone out of pocket are different things.
We're about to give Ukraine 33B. Is that going to cost you anything?
The mysteries of federal finance.
tjohn said:
Yep. If the government is to pay for education, that education should have a purpose - STEM, the trades, nursing, teaching. I don't support public funding for education for the sake of education.
While we are at it, why don't we start charging tuition for High School Drama and History classes?
Education should be free. End of story. Anyone who thinks we don't have the money for that just needs to look at Elon Musk and the Twitter deal.
upthecreek said:
I refuse to believe that there is not a ledger somewhere in the federal government listing college loan payments as an asset. Of course the money will need to be made up somewhere.
The obvious place to make up that money is with the billionaires who's companies are subsidized by a continuous influx of educated workers. The arguments made against free education might possibly have made sense (but probably not) when the US had an industrial economy but, in the age of the service economy, pay to play education is just another government subsidy for the ultra wealthy.
The time has come to tell the billionaires that the trough is closed.
Well of course education should be free and the billionaires should pay their fair share. That's not going to happen in the dwindling months while the Dems are "in control" of the WH and both houses of Congress. It's probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes. The debt forgiveness debate is happening now because of the ticking clock.
DaveSchmidt said:
RTrent said:
Yet, other countries manage to not impose heavy debt on their students. Its not forgiveness but subsidies or simply free education.
You want it under control, then do what they do.
Which countries that have as high a percentage of college graduates as the U.S. (50 percent of adults ages 25 to 64) don’t impose a heavy deb burden? For one set of comparisons, the average student debt is roughly $32,000 in the U.S. and Japan, $56,000 in England, and $20,000 in Canada.
Meanwhile, only 32 percent of German adults have a college degree; the rate is 41 in France and Spain and 42 in Denmark.
The OECD chart I used for guidance, after setting it for tertiary education results only:
https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/adult-education-level.htm#indicator-chart
I wonder where that data came from. maybe it's the % of population who attended any college for any amount of time.
this U.S. census estimate is from 2015, but the % of bachelor's degree+ is nowhere near 50%:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf
ml1 said:
I wonder where that data came from. maybe it's the % of population who attended any college for any amount of time.
this U.S. census estimate is from 2015, but the % of bachelor's degree+ is nowhere near 50%:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf
I don’t have access to the OECD’s Education at a Glance report, which the chart lists as its source, so I don’t know where the data came from. The chart defines tertiary education as “those having completed the highest level of education, by age group. This includes both theoretical programmes leading to advanced research or high skill professions such as medicine and more vocational programmes leading to the labour market.” It’s also commonly described online as a synonym for postsecondary education.
(Also, this wouldn’t appear to account for the difference, but the census data includes ages 65 and above. The OECD percentage is for 64 and under.)
Chart aside, the question I asked RTrent can be an open one: Which comparable nations (Finland, for example, isn’t really a useful comparison, given its demographics and size) are putting students through college without significant debt?
A couple of years ago, with very little consultation, our federal govt decided that Uni fees in particular needed to be higher (so they could reduce funding further, and also increase youth employment). They sought to weight students’ interest towards STEM, forgetting where teachers etc come from, and landed up with this mess (published this week):
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/university-fees-are-changing-how-will-it-affect-you-20201009-p563ib.html (From 2020 when fees rose. Might be a Murdoch paywall)
DaveSchmidt said:
Chart aside, the question I asked RTrent can be an open one: Which comparable nations (Finland, for example, isn’t really a useful comparison, given its demographics and size) are putting students through college without significant debt?
Would "the United States in an earlier era" count, under the idea that the past is another country?
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
I wonder where that data came from. maybe it's the % of population who attended any college for any amount of time.
this U.S. census estimate is from 2015, but the % of bachelor's degree+ is nowhere near 50%:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf
I don’t have access to the OECD’s Education at a Glance report, which the chart lists as its source, so I don’t know where the data came from. The chart defines tertiary education as “those having completed the highest level of education, by age group. This includes both theoretical programmes leading to advanced research or high skill professions such as medicine and more vocational programmes leading to the labour market.” It’s also commonly described online as a synonym for postsecondary education.
(Also, this wouldn’t appear to account for the difference, but the census data includes ages 65 and above. The OECD percentage is for 64 and under.)
Chart aside, the question I asked RTrent can be an open one: Which comparable nations (Finland, for example, isn’t really a useful comparison, given its demographics and size) are putting students through college without significant debt?
indeed.
My nitpicking the number you cited doesn't really change the answer to your question. I just figured turnabout is fair play. 
PVW said:
Would "the United States in an earlier era" count, under the idea that the past is another country?
Yes. But if we stick with census data, the percentage of the population that had a college degree when I got mine was about 40 percent below what it is now, so it’s a different country in some ways that may complicate the lessons we can take from it.
If I recall correctly, the largest driver of soaring tuition in the U.S. is not cuts in state funding — though that’s important — but exploding administrative costs. That trend is at least in part a response to the expanded administrative requirements and responsibilities — another complication.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I don’t see this being discussed in another thread so I thought I’d venture into this topic a little. It’s in the news lately.
I’ve come down on the side of some level of forgiveness of loans. One of my primary reasons is pragmatic. If you let a bunch of young folks significantly reduce their student loan obligation, that would serve as another form of economic stimulus.
The extra cash for those folks is not likely to collect a lot of dust. I had student loans. At one point I think I was paying something like $400 a month. If that obligation had been taken away I would have directed that money elsewhere such as maybe buying a newer car sooner or putting more money into our housing. Even just being able to go out to dinner a few times. All those things would have helped the local economy, not just me.
And I don’t think that I’m unique in that regard. The young people who are paying back school debt right now could use that money in a lot of ways that would boost the economy around them. It would be easy to judge some of such spending as frivolous (a new iPhone! A big TV! A round of shots for my friends!) but ultimately that spending is benefiting people.
I realize that there’s a lot to discuss about how college is currently being funded in the US. But I see value in hitting a big old “reset” button right now, helping a lot of young people who are struggling, and boosting the economy as well.