What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Education System in America: What's the Next Step? (1 Viewer)

The Commish

Footballguy
A ton of talk going on in the "Fears of Biden" thread about education.  Lots of GOOD talk actually.  Excited to get back to talking about policy and not third grade name calling.  Decided to start a thread because it's pretty clear many of some very different perspectives on education.  

 
Just to sort of lay it out a bit...as far as "free education"...not sure why politicians always skip steps to go big.  (other than being pulled in many directions by lobbyists usually).

Start smaller

  • incentive trades/trade schools
  • adopt a program to pay for up to 2 years of community college.  There are probably several programs like this already out there... Tennessee Promise is one of them
The community college being one that makes it to where you sort of weed out those who may drop out after a year or two anyway...but affords others the chance to get their core credits in and not have to have crazy out of pocket costs to do so.  Especially good in a times of a pandemic where so many are virtual anyway.

 
Catching up on the thread from last night, I have a couple comments:

1.  I feel like the "who's going to pay for it" ship has sailed.  We can all agree on that, yes?  The government is going to spend on things.  There seems to be zero interest in worrying about debt/deficits.  That's a pipedream for many of us.
2.  I touched very briefly on the "haves / have nots" issue in a couple posts.  I would submit that this is a much more systemic issue.  We address it at a systemic level and it takes care of itself wherever it creeps into the specific topics we discuss.
 

The main thing I want to point out is the stark contrast that exists between "helping companies" and "helping people".  I am torn on some of the comments in the previous thread about "fairness" and being able to step out of our own shoes and look at things from a holistic perspective.  I mean it wasn't "fair" that I had to shlep my way down to the local library to do research on my projects when I was a kid when all my kid has to do today is turn on a computer or ask google/siri/alexa.  We also have to acknowledge that, yes, there would be abuse of the system.  This is true of any system.  Some people will do whatever they can to cheat.  That reality cannot be a primary reason we DON'T do something.  Just like "they didn't do it for me, so they shouldn't do it for them" doesn't seem to pass the muster.  Times change.  Circumstance are different for everyone.  We also need to avoid painting the abuse as "the norm" and understand it for what it is.  

In the other thread, I mentioned four different types of people (and I think IK or someone else also mentioned them) and while there are many more types, those four probably make up 95% of the cases.  One of those four was "abusers" or "slackers" in the system.  Those are easy to address IMO.  We address all of them as if the monies being provided are like a scholarship.  Requirements of the student to continue receiving the funds would be a must.  If they don't meet them, they have to pay the money back.  Simple as that.  If there are circumstances that prohibit them from meeting the obligation, the student can make their case and decisions made based on circumstances presented.  These really aren't very difficult things to do, but they do take time and money.

Getting back to the companies vs people thing...this bothers me.  I see many people who are pounding the table that tax breaks for companies are necessary for these companies to compete in the global market.  I know you guys have heard it.  Some of you have even said it.  And it's true (to an extent).  It's also true for individuals.  Problem is, there are a great many of us who resist this notion of our government helping individuals compete in the global market.  Why?  Well, I get a laundry list of reasons why.  The problem is, that same list of reasons why we don't help individuals (abuse, laziness, scamming the system etc) are all valid for corporations too, but we do it for them anyway.  That makes absolutely ZERO sense to me.  I don't know how people reconcile that honestly.  In my view, if we're going to help companies in this manner and that's a proper role of government then it's a proper role of government to do the same for individuals.

 
In the other thread most of the talk was about student loan forgiveness.  For what it's worth, these student loan forgiveness conversations always come down to different visions of "fairness" and so far I think only one side of the coin has been presented so I guess I'll try to write a few words about my vision of fairness.

I think any system is unfair that says to a kid at 17 or 18 that he should make this enormous decision with the potential to cripple his entire economic future.  This isn't like a situation where a teenage kid murders a homeless man and has to live with those consequences for his whole life, I don't have a problem with that.  "Don't kill homeless people or you will destroy your life" is a message I'm comfortable with.  But "don't take the risk of getting an education or you might destroy your life" is a message I'm deeply uncomfortable with.  Especially because it's a decision that often doesn't have an obviously correct answer.  And because it's been drilled into most people their entire lives that education is a key to prosperity.  The kid may very well have been encouraged to do it by family members or teachers or other adults in their lives.  He is doing what he at least perceives to be the right thing.  I think as a society we should be able to do better than to say to him "sorry, I know you think you were making a good choice that was going to help you and your family but in fact you made a poor choice so you're going to have this giant financial burden on you for your entire life as a result."

The fact that it's often so ambiguous what the "right" decision is makes the decision to punish a wrong decision seem even more cruel.  It is often the case that it's financially better for someone to go to the more expensive school if he wants to be a banker, but better to go to the less expensive school if he wants to be a teacher.  But he's 17 and he doesn't know exactly what he wants.  So maybe he gets pushed to the more expensive school because it gives him more options, but then he decides he actually wanted to be a teacher.  I think it is cruel for this well-meaning person to suffer such a severe punishment.

I also think that some people tend to assume their circumstances in choosing a school and paying off a loan were equivalent to others that seem incapable of paying off their loans, but I think in the aggregate that's not true.  It often isn't just two people with identical circumstances where one makes good decisions and one makes bad ones.  As @IvanKaramazov mentioned in the other thread, the people that are really screwed are those that: 1) went to a for-profit school where the degree is worthless and 2) only completed part of a degree but then dropped out.  But I was never similarly situated to those people.  Nobody from my social circle went to a for-profit school, the people who go to those schools are disproportionately minority, older, single parents, etc.  Those are also the groups that often have to drop out of college to care for an elderly parent or child or to take a second job or something.  It was EASY for me to finish my four year degree because I had none of those distractions at all.  I was literally a full time student.  

I also have to say I'm just not that sympathetic to people that got four year degrees and then paid off their loans but now wish they had some more money or had gone to a better school.  You guys are doing better than most people.  You're a college graduate.  You have no student loan debt.  You don't need help from the government.  Other people do.  And part of the reason those people need help is because of other governmental decisions in the past put them in the impossible position of having to make an extremely risky decision  at a young age with very imperfect information.  

 
I also have to say I'm just not that sympathetic to people that got four year degrees and then paid off their loans but now wish they had some more money or had gone to a better school.  You guys are doing better than most people.  You're a college graduate.  You have no student loan debt.  You don't need help from the government.  Other people do.  And part of the reason those people need help is because of other governmental decisions in the past put them in the impossible position of having to make an extremely risky decision  at a young age with very imperfect information.  
This is a good post overall, and this last paragraph in particular is sort of where I'm coming from.  A lot of people look at this from the perspective of "Some people with student loans are struggling -- we should help people with student loans," when a better approach would be "Some people with student loans are struggling -- we should help people who are struggling."  I'd rather see us have safety net programs like BIG, a negative income tax, or whatever that help poor people because they're poor as opposed to targeting some particular group -- college graduates, farmers, steel workers, etc. -- who happen to fall into some category that correlates very loosely with certain financial challenges.

Likewise, if young people make bad decisions, let's have some guardrails for young people who make bad decisions as opposed to singling out student borrowers.  We already have a bankruptcy system that allows people to get their debts discharged if they end up in over their heads.  That system isn't perfect, but it's been designed to balance the need for personal responsibility vs. the need for an occasional do-over.  It's perfectly capable of dealing with the problem of an unsophisticated working adult who gets ripped off by a for-profit school.  (The lack of collateralization on student loans is an important wrinkle, but that can be handled in ways that are better than cutting a check to a huge number of people who don't need one).  

I think any system is unfair that says to a kid at 17 or 18 that he should make this enormous decision with the potential to cripple his entire economic future.  This isn't like a situation where a teenage kid murders a homeless man and has to live with those consequences for his whole life, I don't have a problem with that.  "Don't kill homeless people or you will destroy your life" is a message I'm comfortable with.
This sort of gets at this point a bit.  We have an entirely separate justice system for minors.  If a teenager murders a homeless person for kicks, we can choose to try them as an adult, but most of the time we don't do that because we understand that young people sometimes make really dumb decisions and we don't normally want them to be life-altering.  So a 17 year old who robs a liquor store potentially faces far less severe consequences -- but not no consequences at all -- than a 25 year old who commits the same offence.  I strongly support this approach in general, and I wouldn't mind applying a similar mindset to this issue.  Again, I see bankruptcy as being a mechanism already in place that can address this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 I'd rather see us have safety net programs like BIG, a negative income tax, or whatever that help poor people because they're poor as opposed to targeting some particular group -- college graduates, farmers, steel workers, etc. -- who happen to fall into some category that correlates very loosely with certain financial challenges.
Yeah me too but these proposals lack any real political momentum right now so I’ll take even imperfect forms of income/wealth redistribution over no such redistribution.

 
In the other thread most of the talk was about student loan forgiveness.  For what it's worth, these student loan forgiveness conversations always come down to different visions of "fairness" and so far I think only one side of the coin has been presented so I guess I'll try to write a few words about my vision of fairness.

I think any system is unfair that says to a kid at 17 or 18 that he should make this enormous decision with the potential to cripple his entire economic future.  This isn't like a situation where a teenage kid murders a homeless man and has to live with those consequences for his whole life, I don't have a problem with that.  "Don't kill homeless people or you will destroy your life" is a message I'm comfortable with.  But "don't take the risk of getting an education or you might destroy your life" is a message I'm deeply uncomfortable with.  Especially because it's a decision that often doesn't have an obviously correct answer.  And because it's been drilled into most people their entire lives that education is a key to prosperity.  The kid may very well have been encouraged to do it by family members or teachers or other adults in their lives.  He is doing what he at least perceives to be the right thing.  I think as a society we should be able to do better than to say to him "sorry, I know you think you were making a good choice that was going to help you and your family but in fact you made a poor choice so you're going to have this giant financial burden on you for your entire life as a result."

The fact that it's often so ambiguous what the "right" decision is makes the decision to punish a wrong decision seem even more cruel.  It is often the case that it's financially better for someone to go to the more expensive school if he wants to be a banker, but better to go to the less expensive school if he wants to be a teacher.  But he's 17 and he doesn't know exactly what he wants.  So maybe he gets pushed to the more expensive school because it gives him more options, but then he decides he actually wanted to be a teacher.  I think it is cruel for this well-meaning person to suffer such a severe punishment.

I also think that some people tend to assume their circumstances in choosing a school and paying off a loan were equivalent to others that seem incapable of paying off their loans, but I think in the aggregate that's not true.  It often isn't just two people with identical circumstances where one makes good decisions and one makes bad ones.  As @IvanKaramazov mentioned in the other thread, the people that are really screwed are those that: 1) went to a for-profit school where the degree is worthless and 2) only completed part of a degree but then dropped out.  But I was never similarly situated to those people.  Nobody from my social circle went to a for-profit school, the people who go to those schools are disproportionately minority, older, single parents, etc.  Those are also the groups that often have to drop out of college to care for an elderly parent or child or to take a second job or something.  It was EASY for me to finish my four year degree because I had none of those distractions at all.  I was literally a full time student.  

I also have to say I'm just not that sympathetic to people that got four year degrees and then paid off their loans but now wish they had some more money or had gone to a better school.  You guys are doing better than most people.  You're a college graduate.  You have no student loan debt.  You don't need help from the government.  Other people do.  And part of the reason those people need help is because of other governmental decisions in the past put them in the impossible position of having to make an extremely risky decision  at a young age with very imperfect information.  
A lot of these people are struggling now.  And they in a lot of cases worked extra, saved more and spent less.  And that financial responsibility wasn't needed.  They should have simply waited.  They could have a lot of that money in the bank now, and their lives would be better.  

It's not every case.  But there are certainly people who haven't tried to pay off that debt.  They bought nicer things with their money instead.  That now gets rewarded.  

Also, I can't get over the college kids to show up, party a semester and fail out.  I'm not "ok" with forgiving the money they spent to do that.  Sorry you paid 10 grand to party for semester.  

 
I have issues with people saying those that did pay off their student loans should not be jealous that tomorrow his roommates gets completely forgiven.

I hate the message it sends.  "Hey, go ahead and be responsible, but your roomie, who wasn't responsible at all, will have his forgiven.  Sucks to be you buddy."   You should have been less responsible I guess, because we reward that in this country.

If you wanna allow bankruptcy for the loans, I can live with that......but blanket forgiveness is just the wrong damn message.

 
I have issues with people saying those that did pay off their student loans should not be jealous that tomorrow his roommates gets completely forgiven.

I hate the message it sends.  "Hey, go ahead and be responsible, but your roomie, who wasn't responsible at all, will have his forgiven.  Sucks to be you buddy."   You should have been less responsible I guess, because we reward that in this country.

If you wanna allow bankruptcy for the loans, I can live with that......but blanket forgiveness is just the wrong damn message.
During the primaries, there was a father yelling at Warren for this IIRC.  A lot of Americans feel this way.

And "Sorry, you should be happy you don't have student loan debt," isn't going to make them feel any better.

 
During the primaries, there was a father yelling at Warren for this IIRC.  A lot of Americans feel this way.

And "Sorry, you should be happy you don't have student loan debt," isn't going to make them feel any better.
Exactly.   That's a very weak reply.  

 
It’s OK for you to be jealous.  
This is just ridiculous.

"LOL YER JUST JEALOUS"

C'mon.  It's not jealousy when you act financially responsible to see someone who didn't get a huge financial windfall to help them while they're struggling--and you just get to keep struggling because you already paid yours off--and you're not getting a dime of that money you could use to live on back.

 
This is just ridiculous.

"LOL YER JUST JEALOUS"

C'mon.  It's not jealousy when you act financially responsible to see someone who didn't get a huge financial windfall to help them while they're struggling--and you just get to keep struggling because you already paid yours off--and you're not getting a dime of that money you could use to live on back.
Agreed, it’s a tough pill to swallow even knowing that it will create a better economy for you to operate it in. I mentioned in the other thread that a more fair plan is probably something like everyone at age X gets something like $20,000 credit to apply towards something that benefits their career. That could be a student loan, job training, rent for your business space, a work truck, tools for work, outfitting your home for a state of the art work from home center, etc.That would apply retroactively to many people but I think you have to cut the that off for people of a certain again unfortunately. Those who are older also were fortunate enough to have come up in an economy when things like college and homes were simply more affordable and that’s the trade off they have to deal with. 

 
In the other thread most of the talk was about student loan forgiveness.  For what it's worth, these student loan forgiveness conversations always come down to different visions of "fairness" and so far I think only one side of the coin has been presented so I guess I'll try to write a few words about my vision of fairness.

I think any system is unfair that says to a kid at 17 or 18 that he should make this enormous decision with the potential to cripple his entire economic future.  This isn't like a situation where a teenage kid murders a homeless man and has to live with those consequences for his whole life, I don't have a problem with that.  "Don't kill homeless people or you will destroy your life" is a message I'm comfortable with.  But "don't take the risk of getting an education or you might destroy your life" is a message I'm deeply uncomfortable with.  Especially because it's a decision that often doesn't have an obviously correct answer.  And because it's been drilled into most people their entire lives that education is a key to prosperity.  The kid may very well have been encouraged to do it by family members or teachers or other adults in their lives.  He is doing what he at least perceives to be the right thing.  I think as a society we should be able to do better than to say to him "sorry, I know you think you were making a good choice that was going to help you and your family but in fact you made a poor choice so you're going to have this giant financial burden on you for your entire life as a result."

The fact that it's often so ambiguous what the "right" decision is makes the decision to punish a wrong decision seem even more cruel.  It is often the case that it's financially better for someone to go to the more expensive school if he wants to be a banker, but better to go to the less expensive school if he wants to be a teacher.  But he's 17 and he doesn't know exactly what he wants.  So maybe he gets pushed to the more expensive school because it gives him more options, but then he decides he actually wanted to be a teacher.  I think it is cruel for this well-meaning person to suffer such a severe punishment.

I also think that some people tend to assume their circumstances in choosing a school and paying off a loan were equivalent to others that seem incapable of paying off their loans, but I think in the aggregate that's not true.  It often isn't just two people with identical circumstances where one makes good decisions and one makes bad ones.  As @IvanKaramazov mentioned in the other thread, the people that are really screwed are those that: 1) went to a for-profit school where the degree is worthless and 2) only completed part of a degree but then dropped out.  But I was never similarly situated to those people.  Nobody from my social circle went to a for-profit school, the people who go to those schools are disproportionately minority, older, single parents, etc.  Those are also the groups that often have to drop out of college to care for an elderly parent or child or to take a second job or something.  It was EASY for me to finish my four year degree because I had none of those distractions at all.  I was literally a full time student.  

I also have to say I'm just not that sympathetic to people that got four year degrees and then paid off their loans but now wish they had some more money or had gone to a better school.  You guys are doing better than most people.  You're a college graduate.  You have no student loan debt.  You don't need help from the government.  Other people do.  And part of the reason those people need help is because of other governmental decisions in the past put them in the impossible position of having to make an extremely risky decision  at a young age with very imperfect information.  
I think I agree with all of this.

As I said in the other thread, I don't believe that the "I paid my loans so no one should get their forgiven" is a valid argument of any kind, and I can certainly take it down some pretty simply logical conclusions to prove my point and feel ibetter about myself.  I had written that to basically say why I wasn't going to engage that specific trail in this discussion.  I simply don't buy it - I get it is a personal bias, I don't claim to be free of that which I fight all of the time in politics and religion, and I am comfortable with who I am that this one bias is not something that keeps me up at night.

Back to your post though.  Again, I think I agree with all of it.  And I think, if I may be so bold, that the fundamental problem in this discussion is how we actually define and utilize education.  By that, I mean, for the people I disagree with on this topic, I would say that it seems to me that a lot of what they are saying is coming from a point of view where an education on some level is a choice that need not be made.  And on some level, I understand that argument.  However, I push back against it in the strongest sense, and not to create a red herring to pick off but because the underlying language we use matters a great deal.

Educating our population isn't a choice.  Sure, where they get the education, who pays for it, what is made part of it, and all of the policies that get us "education," are open to being interpreted, changed and brought into a new century.  I'm all for that.  I am still of the belief that the current public education system is a failure and needs to be blown up and restarted.  But the idea that we should educate all of our people to the fullest extent possible that they are able to absorb?  There should be no debate on that point.  We should collectively as a society lean into any policy that results in more people being educated, not less.  So with that as my backdrop, do I care if someone got their loans forgiven because I'm still paying mine?  Nope.  Not in the slightest.  Do I care if loans can be discharged in bankruptcy?  Nope.  Not in the slightest.  Not because I believe in some ridiculous notion of redistribution of wealth, but because the better goal is to get the person educated.  I don't care about the short term bill in the face of the long term advancement of our country as a people.

And if in the process of fixing what I see as problems, we restructure and tear down the current student loan industry and free a couple thousand people from their loans... I'm ok with that.  Sometimes policies and programs change because they didn't work.  And in that change, people aren't treated fairly.  I'm ok with that.    

 
I have issues with people saying those that did pay off their student loans should not be jealous that tomorrow his roommates gets completely forgiven.

I hate the message it sends.  "Hey, go ahead and be responsible, but your roomie, who wasn't responsible at all, will have his forgiven.  Sucks to be you buddy."   You should have been less responsible I guess, because we reward that in this country.

If you wanna allow bankruptcy for the loans, I can live with that......but blanket forgiveness is just the wrong damn message.
The bankruptcy option is the best from many policy positions.  It's simple, easy, already exists - and already did exist (lest anyone forget, loans used to be dischargeable).

Why are student loans so different though?  I have a close friend who has basically filed bankruptcy every 8 years or time period she has been allowed to to wipe out her credit cards.  Always lives above her means.  Always has the newest thing.  Always uses credit.  Always pays the minimum.  Never learns her lesson.  Does her time and has filed I think 3 bankruptcies, maybe 4.  Why are we ok with the elimination of consumer debt but not education debt?  

Debt is debt.  

 
From my experiences with doing virtual school this year, there’s definitely a future for it. I think the little kids need to be in school but by the time we are in middle and high school, I think for many kids there is a role for full virtual or part time virtual school. They still need human interaction and adults helping them organize and stay motivated but there is a definite place for this moving forward to make education and the school system more efficient. There’s a lot of work to improve it but for a last minute beta run, it’s gone quite well in my district and most of the kids I work with don’t want to return to normal school even when the virus is gone.

 
The bankruptcy option is the best from many policy positions.  It's simple, easy, already exists - and already did exist (lest anyone forget, loans used to be dischargeable).

Why are student loans so different though?  I have a close friend who has basically filed bankruptcy every 8 years or time period she has been allowed to to wipe out her credit cards.  Always lives above her means.  Always has the newest thing.  Always uses credit.  Always pays the minimum.  Never learns her lesson.  Does her time and has filed I think 3 bankruptcies, maybe 4.  Why are we ok with the elimination of consumer debt but not education debt?  

Debt is debt.  
As I said I am fine with using bankruptcy for elimination of student loan debt.  At least this needs to be looked at by a court before you can just expel them.  I understand in many cases that's just a formality.  

Also, there will always and forever be outlying examples to argue for or against any  policy,  like your friend.

 
The bankruptcy option is the best from many policy positions.  It's simple, easy, already exists - and already did exist (lest anyone forget, loans used to be dischargeable).

Why are student loans so different though?  I have a close friend who has basically filed bankruptcy every 8 years or time period she has been allowed to to wipe out her credit cards.  Always lives above her means.  Always has the newest thing.  Always uses credit.  Always pays the minimum.  Never learns her lesson.  Does her time and has filed I think 3 bankruptcies, maybe 4.  Why are we ok with the elimination of consumer debt but not education debt?  

Debt is debt.  
My guess would be most people aren’t ok with that and are bothered by people like your friend and don’t want new ways to help them escape their obligations. People seem to be far more forgiving of businesses filing for bankruptcy than individuals.

 
As I said I am fine with using bankruptcy for elimination of student loan debt.  At least this needs to be looked at by a court before you can just expel them.  I understand in many cases that's just a formality.  

Also, there will always and forever be outlying examples to argue for or against any  policy,  like your friend.
Agreed - it just seems like for student loans we go right to those outliers - the people that only partied and will basically have me pay for their Zima and degree in Photography.  I mean, not to be dismissive at all - but people do realize that PCU was not a documentary, right?

 
My guess would be most people aren’t ok with that and are bothered by people like your friend and don’t want new ways to help them escape their obligations. People seem to be far more forgiving of businesses filing for bankruptcy than individuals.
Bankruptcy is not something anyone fights at all though.  It is not and never will be a topic for debate as to how to eliminate bankruptcy from the legal system.  We are ok with collectively.  And I would venture to guess that we are ok, at least on some level, because credit card companies are evil and deserve to get screwed. 

Which they are and do.  But that isn't a good way to write policy.

 
Here's a pretty good synopsis by Chicago's Booth who lay much of the problem on the for-profits.  I'm not smart enough to know what the answer is but they also come to the conclusion that stricter regulation of the for-profits and greater government support for the 2 year-schools seems like a great place to start.  I also think there's ways of amending the tax code to make paying off the student debt easier/more attractive without outright cancelling the debt.

 https://review.chicagobooth.edu/public-policy/2019/article/who-s-fault-student-loan-defaults

 
For the sake of argument can we all agree that yes it sucks that I paid off my loans and someone else who's abusing the system might get their loan paid off?  It IS an outcome, but it's not the de facto most prevalent outcome (aka the norm) by any stretch.  I think we all understand the message that sends and we all understand that its a poor message.  As a matter of fact, it's the exact same message sent when the government makes individual tax breaks "temporary" and corporate tax breaks "permanent".  The difference is, it's a small number of cases compared to the greater good where the tax cuts happen over and over and over and over again putting individuals further and further and further behind impacting LARGE swaths of people.

 
Agreed - it just seems like for student loans we go right to those outliers - the people that only partied and will basically have me pay for their Zima and degree in Photography.  I mean, not to be dismissive at all - but people do realize that PCU was not a documentary, right?
:goodposting:   Much more concise than my post above this...but the point I'm trying to make :thanks:  

 
Bankruptcy is not something anyone fights at all though.  It is not and never will be a topic for debate as to how to eliminate bankruptcy from the legal system.  We are ok with collectively.  And I would venture to guess that we are ok, at least on some level, because credit card companies are evil and deserve to get screwed. 

Which they are and do.  But that isn't a good way to write policy.
I agree, just outlining why I think some people grumble about the idea of student loans being forgiven through bankruptcy. I’ve had many conversations with people- especially during the recession- who grumbled about how their neighbor lived above their means and got to just declare bankruptcy to get out of it which wasn’t fair because they always lived in their means. It’s a real sentiment and I think it bleeds into the student loan-bankruptcy policy conversation. People don’t want to add another way for people to “dodge their responsibilities”.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The digital divide and educational divide start early. Very early. And lasts for a lifetime in most cases.

My roommate has experienced it first-hand the last 4 years teaching 2, 3 and 4 year old students at 3 different locations in Miami-Dade and Broward. Two locations have poor parents, mainly black students, many with immigrant parents from Haiti, and one location had upper middle class parents, lots of teachers, lawyers, nurses, doctors, business owners, etc.

She's done virtual in-person sessions with the kids & parents from upper middle class, and now with parents and kids from the Y. The expectations and resources are dramatically different. She's no longer working at the upper middle class preschool, but many parents have hired her to give private zoom lessons on subitizing, reading, and other skills to make sure theirs kids are prepared for kindergarten. She's even done some robotics lessons using a cute robot known as Ozobot - to develop early coding/algorithmic skills supposedly. 

This is a separate discussion from that on upper level education in this thread, but the funds spent on early education potentiality has a big ROI.

 
This is a good post overall, and this last paragraph in particular is sort of where I'm coming from.  A lot of people look at this from the perspective of "Some people with student loans are struggling -- we should help people with student loans," when a better approach would be "Some people with student loans are struggling -- we should help people who are struggling."  I'd rather see us have safety net programs like BIG, a negative income tax, or whatever that help poor people because they're poor as opposed to targeting some particular group -- college graduates, farmers, steel workers, etc. -- who happen to fall into some category that correlates very loosely with certain financial challenges.


Yeah me too but these proposals lack any real political momentum right now so I’ll take even imperfect forms of income/wealth redistribution over no such redistribution.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I think this exchange sums up the two sides pretty nicely.  The pro-forgiveness side acknowledges the imperfections of this approach, but believes it's the most achievable in the short term and the severity of the situation warrants doing this rather than waiting for Plan B to materialize and gain traction.  The anti-forgiveness side sympathizes with the need for reform, but sees what is on the table as too inherently unfair and fraught with moral hazard, and in that sense it is worse than doing nothing.

 
1.  I feel like the "who's going to pay for it" ship has sailed.  We can all agree on that, yes?  The government is going to spend on things.  There seems to be zero interest in worrying about debt/deficits.  That's a pipedream for many of us.
Lol. Gotta love this. Can't solve the primary problem with the whole idea so just assume it doesn't exist. 

 
For the sake of argument can we all agree that yes it sucks that I paid off my loans and someone else who's abusing the system might get their loan paid off?  It IS an outcome, but it's not the de facto most prevalent outcome (aka the norm) by any stretch.  I think we all understand the message that sends and we all understand that its a poor message.  As a matter of fact, it's the exact same message sent when the government makes individual tax breaks "temporary" and corporate tax breaks "permanent".  The difference is, it's a small number of cases compared to the greater good where the tax cuts happen over and over and over and over again putting individuals further and further and further behind impacting LARGE swaths of people.
How many people have paid off student loans?  Hundreds of thousands?  Millions?  Whether or not someone else is abusing the system--someone who paid off their loans had a finite amount of resources.  They invested it in a certain way because you can't ever get rid of student loans and they typically have the worst interest rates.  

And now, we're talking about wiping away debt that they could have had wiped away.  A lot of those people are having a hard time now a days and could benefit from having kept another 10,000$, 20,000$ or 50,000$.  

I'm not opposed to helping those who are less fortunate, but as others have said--a loan is a loan/debt is debt.  Why do you get your student loans forgiven to the tune of 50,000$ but your neighbor who paid that off--who would have gotten help otherwise--doesn't get help in the form off mortgage relief, auto loan relief, etc.  

I realize the government controls the student loans, but to say "we need to help people by getting rid of this specific loan type" seems...I don't know the word.  But it misses the boat for a lot of Americans.

 
How many people have paid off student loans?  Hundreds of thousands?  Millions?  Whether or not someone else is abusing the system--someone who paid off their loans had a finite amount of resources.  They invested it in a certain way because you can't ever get rid of student loans and they typically have the worst interest rates.  

And now, we're talking about wiping away debt that they could have had wiped away.  A lot of those people are having a hard time now a days and could benefit from having kept another 10,000$, 20,000$ or 50,000$.  

I'm not opposed to helping those who are less fortunate, but as others have said--a loan is a loan/debt is debt.  Why do you get your student loans forgiven to the tune of 50,000$ but your neighbor who paid that off--who would have gotten help otherwise--doesn't get help in the form off mortgage relief, auto loan relief, etc.  

I realize the government controls the student loans, but to say "we need to help people by getting rid of this specific loan type" seems...I don't know the word.  But it misses the boat for a lot of Americans.
I thought student loans had really good interest rates?  No?   Serious question. 

 
I'm not opposed to being able to file bankruptcy on student loans.  Perhaps that's the most reasonable answer.  But I think it leads to a whole can of worms, potentially.  

I think education is an investment.  You don't have to go to college.  A lot of people who go to college aren't financially better off.  And while you say "that's not the point of college," it seems asinine to be out to the tune of 50-60,000$ and not have improved your financial standing.  Just food for thought--but if you file bankruptcy on a house or a car, the lender can take it back.  They can't pull the education back out of your head and sell it to recoup part of their loss.  

18 year old kids aren't ideal borrowers.  They're often irresponsible, have no sense of long term planning, and have little to no credit. The current system helps those people get access to funding to go.  I'm not saying the system is ideal or even good.  But if you can file bankruptcy on the loans, do they make it harder to acquire loans?  Do interest rates become even worse to account for people that will file bankruptcy?  Does the government just get out of it all together.  

Because education is an investment, I think you should have some skin in the game.  I think/would hope you take it more seriously when you're responsible for making those loans worth the investment.  Some kids don't see it that way, don't have the insight to think about the long term effects of borrowing 50,000$ to party for a year or 2 before going back home to work at the family business.  Bankruptcy at least presents a negative consequence by harming your credit/ability to finance things going forward. 

I think we've created a bad system where kids are told college is the next step after high school and enter into it with a ton of debt and little thought or planning.  It's just what you do.  In high school, your entire 4 years is planned for you.  In college, you've got to write the whole thing.  You've got to find a goal and figure out how to get there.  And we're not preparing kids for that.  Some get there.  A lot clearly don't.  We need to better prepare the kids.  We need to have them at a more mature point before committing to 10's of thousands of dollars of debt.  

I don't think giving kids 100,000$ for college and sending them unprepared to universities is the answer.  A lot will pi$$ it away.  Perhaps a few years at community college to get your feet wet and find your way--while accumulating a few thousand in debt is a better way to go.  And then if we're subsidising a few thousand a person instead of 10,000+ we're not putting such a hit on the country.

If the outcome is you can file bankruptcy on it, I'm not opposed.  I just think there could be downstream consequences.

 
How many people have paid off student loans?  Hundreds of thousands?  Millions?  Whether or not someone else is abusing the system--someone who paid off their loans had a finite amount of resources.  They invested it in a certain way because you can't ever get rid of student loans and they typically have the worst interest rates.  

And now, we're talking about wiping away debt that they could have had wiped away.  A lot of those people are having a hard time now a days and could benefit from having kept another 10,000$, 20,000$ or 50,000$.  

I'm not opposed to helping those who are less fortunate, but as others have said--a loan is a loan/debt is debt.  Why do you get your student loans forgiven to the tune of 50,000$ but your neighbor who paid that off--who would have gotten help otherwise--doesn't get help in the form off mortgage relief, auto loan relief, etc.  

I realize the government controls the student loans, but to say "we need to help people by getting rid of this specific loan type" seems...I don't know the word.  But it misses the boat for a lot of Americans.
I'm not on board with "forgiveness".....let them file bankruptcy just like any other loan.  That seems to be a key difference continue to overlook.  There is ZERO recourse for these loans at the moment, so ONE suggestion is forgiveness.  And it seems like people (not necessarily you..not sure though) are overlooking or ignoring people saying that forgiveness is not the only way.

 
I thought student loans had really good interest rates?  No?   Serious question. 
I think it's among the worst you can get.

Most of mine ranged from 6-8%.  I had grad plus loans that were 12+%.  Compared to car loans and house loans which have been as low as 2-3%

I refinanced all of my student loans privately and got it down into the 4's.

 
I'm not on board with "forgiveness".....let them file bankruptcy just like any other loan.  That seems to be a key difference continue to overlook.  There is ZERO recourse for these loans at the moment, so ONE suggestion is forgiveness.  And it seems like people (not necessarily you..not sure though) are overlooking or ignoring people saying that forgiveness is not the only way.
Sorry, misunderstood.

If you see one of my posts after the one you quoted--totally on board with bankrupcty and think that's a much better answer as there are some consequences to it.  

However, I question how that impacts future students seeking loans.  But I'm not opposed to the bankruptcy option.

 
Lol. Gotta love this. Can't solve the primary problem with the whole idea so just assume it doesn't exist. 
Well, in my view, the primary problem in all this is a much deeper systemic issue than payments for a particular kind of loan or that politicians won't follow a budget.  There IS a solution for that, but it requires the electorate to do their job and THAT isn't happening either...so why only bring it up in the context you did here?  What's the point you're trying to make?

 
Maybe I don't understand how student loan forgiveness would work, but it seems to me it would need to be step 2 of a process to make college more affordable.  I don't see any sense in forgiving existing student loans only to send the next class of freshman into the same situation that resulted in these loans in the first place.  :shrug:

 
Sorry, misunderstood.

If you see one of my posts after the one you quoted--totally on board with bankrupcty and think that's a much better answer as there are some consequences to it.  

However, I question how that impacts future students seeking loans.  But I'm not opposed to the bankruptcy option.
It would be perceived as a negative impact for some for sure.  Those negatives, however, are part of a larger systemic issue that exists and are not unique to these loans.  Those negatives exist in just about any sort of loan you can think of....switching to this option simply shines a brighter light on those issues.

 
I guess just to broaden this conversation a little, I think a big difference between the anti-loan forgiveness people and the pro-loan forgiveness people is the degree to which they consider the United States to be a meritocracy.  If you think that you've earned your station in life because you deserve it and somebody else doesn't, it's going to strike you as horribly unfair if the people that deserve it less are given free stuff from the government.  I get that.

But in my view this country is very far from a meritocracy.  Advantages and benefits are bestowed upon people all the time, for all sorts of reasons, completely unrelated to whether they deserve it.  Its hard for me to look at things as they are and believe that paying off people's student loans represents some cosmic unfairness.  In my mind it's less likely to be adding to the unfairness of things and more likely to be correcting for the unfairness inherent in the system.

 
I guess just to broaden this conversation a little, I think a big difference between the anti-loan forgiveness people and the pro-loan forgiveness people is the degree to which they consider the United States to be a meritocracy.  If you think that you've earned your station in life because you deserve it and somebody else doesn't, it's going to strike you as horribly unfair if the people that deserve it less are given free stuff from the government.  I get that.

But in my view this country is very far from a meritocracy.  Advantages and benefits are bestowed upon people all the time, for all sorts of reasons, completely unrelated to whether they deserve it.  Its hard for me to look at things as they are and believe that paying off people's student loans represents some cosmic unfairness.  In my mind it's less likely to be adding to the unfairness of things and more likely to be correcting for the unfairness inherent in the system.
I don't think it's because someone deserves it and someone else doesn't.Two people with the same student loan debt.  Both people have the same information as to how student loans work.  Person 1 wants the loans gone as quickly as they can, so they emphasize paying it off.  They put extra money into it that they could have saved.  They could have gone on more vacations.  They could have bought a new car or 3 if we're talkling in terms of 50,000$.  They had a finite amount of resources and decided to put a large portion of them towards ending their student loan debt.  

Person B didn't do that.  They've paid the minimum for 3,5, 10 years, what have you.  And that's ok too.  But they've maybe been able to go on more vacations.  They've gotten to buy some newer stuff perhaps because they didn't put their resources into the student loan payoff.  Maybe they've got 10,000$ in the bank because they didn't write that last student loan check.  Now, they're going to get a nice bonus to wipe away their student loans?  

It's not a matter of have and have nots, who does and doesn't deserve it.  Some people put their resources towards ending the student loans, and if this is a thing, they shouldn't have done that.  Perhaps they don't have the money in the bank that they should have in a world where student loans can just be up and forgiven.  

I think everyone is painting various dichotamies where there's a lot of grey in actuality.

It's not good people that paid off their loans vs bad people who didn't.

It's not rich people who were able to pay off their loans vs the poor people who can't.  

There's a lot of grey in there.  But, for certain in the middle of a pandemic, those people that have paid off their loans would also be more financially sound if they were given the same "bonus," and got some of their student loan payments back.

 
I don't think it's because someone deserves it and someone else doesn't.Two people with the same student loan debt.  Both people have the same information as to how student loans work.  Person 1 wants the loans gone as quickly as they can, so they emphasize paying it off.  They put extra money into it that they could have saved.  They could have gone on more vacations.  They could have bought a new car or 3 if we're talkling in terms of 50,000$.  They had a finite amount of resources and decided to put a large portion of them towards ending their student loan debt.  

Person B didn't do that.  They've paid the minimum for 3,5, 10 years, what have you.  And that's ok too.  But they've maybe been able to go on more vacations.  They've gotten to buy some newer stuff perhaps because they didn't put their resources into the student loan payoff.  Maybe they've got 10,000$ in the bank because they didn't write that last student loan check.  Now, they're going to get a nice bonus to wipe away their student loans?  

It's not a matter of have and have nots, who does and doesn't deserve it.  Some people put their resources towards ending the student loans, and if this is a thing, they shouldn't have done that.  Perhaps they don't have the money in the bank that they should have in a world where student loans can just be up and forgiven.  

I think everyone is painting various dichotamies where there's a lot of grey in actuality.

It's not good people that paid off their loans vs bad people who didn't.

It's not rich people who were able to pay off their loans vs the poor people who can't.  

There's a lot of grey in there.  But, for certain in the middle of a pandemic, those people that have paid off their loans would also be more financially sound if they were given the same "bonus," and got some of their student loan payments back.
Right I understand the argument that you guys are making.  I just think your hypothetical "Person A" and "Person B" are not representative of the problem.  

 
I dont understand eliminating student debt. Isnt there already a way in place that makes repaying it means tested? If there isnt then that gets my vote for the fix. 

Seems those people that have to pay it off within their means can just be jealous of the people that dont have that debt. 

 
Right I understand the argument that you guys are making.  I just think your hypothetical "Person A" and "Person B" are not representative of the problem.  
I guess what do you see as the problem?

Simply that student loan debt exists and we should get rid of it?  

Or...

People are struggling to get by due to the financial impacts of COVID-19 and getting rid of student loan payments would help people. 

Do we think that only people with student loan debt are struggling?  If you've paid off your loans and are struggling--why is their no relief for those people?  Would 10,000$ in their pocket not help them get by?  Would it not stimulate the economy?  We can wipe off 50,000$ in debt if you haven't paid it off, but if you paid it off already--well you've got 1 less bill so figure it out.  

You'll have to forgive me for not seeing that as a good system.

 
I guess what do you see as the problem?

Simply that student loan debt exists and we should get rid of it?  

Or...

People are struggling to get by due to the financial impacts of COVID-19 and getting rid of student loan payments would help people. 

Do we think that only people with student loan debt are struggling?  If you've paid off your loans and are struggling--why is their no relief for those people?  Would 10,000$ in their pocket not help them get by?  Would it not stimulate the economy?  We can wipe off 50,000$ in debt if you haven't paid it off, but if you paid it off already--well you've got 1 less bill so figure it out.  

You'll have to forgive me for not seeing that as a good system.
I think lots of struggling people should be helped, not just student loan borrowers.  But I also think that, in the aggregate, people with substantial student loans are worse off than people that have already repaid their loans, and therefore they tend to be struggling more.

 
In the other thread most of the talk was about student loan forgiveness.  For what it's worth, these student loan forgiveness conversations always come down to different visions of "fairness" and so far I think only one side of the coin has been presented so I guess I'll try to write a few words about my vision of fairness.
I think the fairness argument is sort of silly. As I wrote in the other thread, "Because it sucked for me, it should suck for you too," isn't very convincing.

I'm against forgiveness of student loans because its a bad idea. It just doesn't make much sense if you want to help people in need. There are much more effective ways to do that.

 
I dont understand eliminating student debt. Isnt there already a way in place that makes repaying it means tested? If there isnt then that gets my vote for the fix. 

Seems those people that have to pay it off within their means can just be jealous of the people that dont have that debt. 
There are income based repayment plans that forgive any unpaid principal after a predetermined number of years but I'm not sure which loans are eligible.

https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven

 
I think the fairness argument is sort of silly. As I wrote in the other thread, "Because it sucked for me, it should suck for you too," isn't very convincing.
Why not apply this same argument to other types of borrowing?

A pays for his house in cash.  B pays for his house with a mortgage.  The government abolishes mortgages.  The result in that B was handed hundreds of thousands of dollars while A gets nothing, even though the only difference is that one paid for his purchase immediately while the other chose to pay later.

A pays for a car in cash.  B finances his car.  Then the government abolishes car loans.  The result in that B was handed tens of thousands of dollars while A gets nothing, even though the only difference is that one paid for his purchase immediately while the other chose to pay later.

A writes a check for a new television.  B charges it on his Visa.  Then the government and/or Project Mayhem wipes out all credit card debt.  The result is that B gets a free television while A gets nothing, even though the only difference is that one paid for his purchase immediately while the other chose to pay later.

This isn't "It sucked for me, so it should suck for you too."  Its that we handed out huge sums of money to people who bought the exact same product for the exact same price, with the determining factor being how they financed their purchase.  That's kind of nuts.  If you want to give free college, free housing, free cars, and free televisions to disadvantaged folks, just do so.  Don't give stuff away to affluent people.

 
For all of you who think that appeals to "unfairness" should be out of bounds, I propose that the government keep student loans firmly in place and strictly hold borrowers to the terms of their loans.  Also, the government should issue refund checks to everyone who paid for school without going into debt.  The result of my policy -- which now that I think about it is really pretty awesome -- would be that the Karamazov household receives about $125K from the government as reimbursement for my kids' college (so far).  I promise I'll spend this money on luxury items, thus stimulating the economy and providing much-needed jobs in the automotive industry, electronics industry, and high-end whisky industry.

Sure, that would suck for people who borrowed, but just because it sucked for you doesn't mean it needs to suck for me.  Borrowers are made no worse off than they were before, but I receive the financial assistance I need to switch over from swill like Makers Mark to the Pappy Van Winkle that I deserve.    

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top