What is your opinion on student loan forgiveness?

[ciao_yall]

Let's put it this way - if you can't afford college, what are your alternatives?

I went to college, borrowed and came out with debt. Yes, I chose in-state and that kept costs down. And I eventually paid them off.

Where would any of us be today without a college degree or beyond?

[dismalist]

Debt forgiveness is already occurring -- piecemeal.

Watch tuition go up at more astonishing rates!

[Anon1787]

Where would any of us be today without a college degree or beyond?

A college degree is necessary for some professions and occupations like a college instructor, but its necessity is greatly exaggerated. Using BLS numbers an economist a while back estimated that about 33% of college graduates were working in jobs that BLS listed as not requiring a bachelor's degree (it's not just your starving PhD student working as a barista @ Starbucks).

[Parasaurolophus]

Unsurprisingly, I'm all for it. It seems like a good move to me, both economically and politically.

I think it's wrong for the federal government to charge interest on loans which are investments in the future of the country. Frankly, I think it's wrong for them not to universalize higher education, but that's another story. It's especially wrong when that debt survives bankruptcy, can see your meagre benefits garnished, etc.

It seems pretty clear, also, that the debt load is crushing. Something like 3/4 of all federal loans are currently either not being paid back at all, or are being paid back under partial relief programs like the IBR, which indicates that the debtor is under financial hardship. It's a concrete way to help a lot of people right now. Given the massive economic, political, and social benefits of a debt jubilee, it seems stupid not to do it.

I'm not at all bothered that a few freeloaders will win big. It's way more important to me that tens of thousands (or more) of people who are desperate and struggling will be materially helped. That's the whole point of having a government. If it can't do that, then you may as well not have one. Frankly, the argument that it shouldn't be done because you had to pay all of yours back is just childish, not to mention churlish.

[kaysixteen]

Random points:

1) Outright forgiveness is almost certainly politically impossible, so long as 2/3 of the American adult population lacks a college degree and many if not most of these folks would see such forgiveness as a handout to spoiled middle class+ people... unless some corresponding give-away to people like this were also entertained.

2) It is certainly true that universities might well, in a post-forgiveness era, jack up tuition even more... maybe.... but even if they do not, we need to tie reforms such as loan forgiveness to serious restructuring of our overall higher ed system, without which it would soon become something that would be essentially unaffordable for most people, and college educations would largely go back to the pre-WWII status of something only for the rich, or those extremely intelligent non-rich kids who'd be able to access limited available merit scholarships... and this in an era where, like it or not, college educations are only going to be more needed to get and keep most middle class jobs (as well as being a public good, in terms of a solid college education's being able to foster information literacy, critical thinking, etc., skills needed in our population in general). 

3) Borrowing money for higher ed, whether undergrad or grad/ professional, just ain't the same as borrowing $40k for a new ride (I paid a tenth of that for my current ride, which, well, rides well enough).  And yet, the loans for cars, etc., can be discharged via bankruptcy.   That the college loans cannot be, is unjust.  And it just ain't right to criticize a person, however old they may be *now*, for making 'bad choices' as an 18yo, especially given the mis-, and also often outright dis- information propagated to them, well that's unjust as well.

[marshwiggle]

I think it's wrong for the federal government to charge interest on loans which are investments in the future of the country.

If I want to do a PhD in "Klingon Studies", it's hard to see how that's an "investment in the future of the country". As long as students can study whatever they want, it's ludicrous to suggest that all of that is remotely equivalent in terms of its value to the entire nation.

[ciao_yall]

Where would any of us be today without a college degree or beyond?

A college degree is necessary for some professions and occupations like a college instructor, but its necessity is greatly exaggerated. Using BLS numbers an economist a while back estimated that about 33% of college graduates were working in jobs that BLS listed as not requiring a bachelor's degree (it's not just your starving PhD student working as a barista @ Starbucks).

Fine. Maybe when they just graduated from college, they were working as baristas. But in 5 years, who will be managing the store, district, marketing... who has a career path?

[ciao_yall]

I think it's wrong for the federal government to charge interest on loans which are investments in the future of the country.

If I want to do a PhD in "Klingon Studies", it's hard to see how that's an "investment in the future of the country". As long as students can study whatever they want, it's ludicrous to suggest that all of that is remotely equivalent in terms of its value to the entire nation.

The studies of social sciences and popular culture make excellent backgrounds for market researchers, human resources professionals, psychologists... you name it.

[marshwiggle]

I think it's wrong for the federal government to charge interest on loans which are investments in the future of the country.

If I want to do a PhD in "Klingon Studies", it's hard to see how that's an "investment in the future of the country". As long as students can study whatever they want, it's ludicrous to suggest that all of that is remotely equivalent in terms of its value to the entire nation.

The studies of social sciences and popular culture make excellent backgrounds for market researchers, human resources professionals, psychologists... you name it.

Absolutely, especially if I'm doing business with, or hiring, Klingons.

[dismalist]

One can claim that college makes one more productive. Then one can pay back one's loans with interest.

Or, one can claim that college doesn't make one more productive. Then student loans are consumption loans. They should be subsidized with a write off? Hell no.

And again, the bulk of the dollars in student loans are with the doctors, the lawyers, the MBA's. A tax system which subsidized these people at the expense of everybody else would rightfully be rejected.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think it's wrong for the federal government to charge interest on loans which are investments in the future of the country.

If I want to do a PhD in "Klingon Studies", it's hard to see how that's an "investment in the future of the country". As long as students can study whatever they want, it's ludicrous to suggest that all of that is remotely equivalent in terms of its value to the entire nation.

The US student loan crisis is about undergraduate degrees, not graduate degrees. The issues are different.

Even so, I don't see a problem with undergraduates (or even graduates) majoring in whatever. Even if the hard skills are negligible, they bring the soft skills and experience back to their communities. A high general level of education benefits us all.

Besides, centralizing that kind of decision-making power is very difficult to do, and would be a bad idea (in much the same way that command economies aren't a great idea). Not to mention that if I'm in charge, there are whole swathes of the academy that I think are about as valuable as Klingon studies would be, if it were real--and my low opinion of those fields may or may not be adequately justified, and it may or may not be widely shared (for some, it definitely goes against the tide of popular opinion). That's why you wouldn't want to base your decision on my views about what's valuable: the chances of error are relatively high. Worse, however, there are plenty of courses it'd be worse for a student to take than no course at all, or plenty of instructors about whom the same could be said. But wading into such granular decision-making is inefficient, and isn't going to improve outcomes.

Better to just let everyone major in whatever they want to major in. Like any investment, there's a risk a particular student won't pan out. That's why the risk is distributed across many, many students; and besides, only 25% of federal loans are in repayment anyway, so it's not like that's a good rate of return.

[bio-nonymous]

Another point of contention over forgiveness could be push back on politicians from solid middle and lower-upper class taxpayers who scraped and saved and sacrificed to be able to pay for theirs children's education without them incurring debt--only to then turn around use their tax $$$ to pay for the education of those who racked up enormous loans--some, as we all know, sometimes irresponsibly in relation to future earning potential.

As far as well-paid professionals with advanced degrees--IF this were to be attempted, it would be easy enough to limit forgiveness to undergraduate programs or to exclude professional programs (MBA, PA, DPT, MD, DO, JD, etc.)  where the debt incurred is perhaps reasonable to a degree (pun intended)?? Honestly, what carpenter wants to hear his tax money is being spent to finance the education of doctors and lawyers?

[Parasaurolophus]

Another point of contention over forgiveness could be push back on politicians from solid middle and lower-upper class taxpayers who scraped and saved and sacrificed to be able to pay for theirs children's education without them incurring debt--only to then turn around use their tax $$$ to pay for the education of those who racked up enormous loans--some, as we all know, sometimes irresponsibly in relation to future earning potential.

As far as well-paid professionals with advanced degrees--IF this were to be attempted, it would be easy enough to limit forgiveness to undergraduate programs or to exclude professional programs (MBA, PA, DPT, MD, DO, JD, etc.)  where the debt incurred is perhaps reasonable to a degree (pun intended)?? Honestly, what carpenter wants to hear his tax money is being spent to finance the education of doctors and lawyers?

Not that anybody like that actually cares, but you could educate them about (1) how federal government finances actually work, and (2) how much (/little) of student loan debt is currently being repaid in other words, their opposition should stretch to the current system, and various forgiveness plans wouldn't change a whole lot financially, but would make a huge difference in terms of human suffering).

But since the argument is childish and churlish, and not offered in good faith, I don't think anyone should worry about it. (Of course, that's not how it plays out in real life.)

[ciao_yall]

Another point of contention over forgiveness could be push back on politicians from solid middle and lower-upper class taxpayers who scraped and saved and sacrificed to be able to pay for theirs children's education without them incurring debt--only to then turn around use their tax $$$ to pay for the education of those who racked up enormous loans--some, as we all know, sometimes irresponsibly in relation to future earning potential.

As far as well-paid professionals with advanced degrees--IF this were to be attempted, it would be easy enough to limit forgiveness to undergraduate programs or to exclude professional programs (MBA, PA, DPT, MD, DO, JD, etc.)  where the debt incurred is perhaps reasonable to a degree (pun intended)?? Honestly, what carpenter wants to hear his tax money is being spent to finance the education of doctors and lawyers?

The carpenter who is being paid by those doctors and lawyers to build their homes and offices.

And the same carpenter who brings his family to that doctor to treat them when they are sick, or who gets a lawyer to help him when a client refuses to pay or sues him.

[mahagonny]

One can claim that college makes one more productive. Then one can pay back one's loans with interest.

Or, one can claim that college doesn't make one more productive. Then student loans are consumption loans. They should be subsidized with a write off? Hell no.

And again, the bulk of the dollars in student loans are with the doctors, the lawyers, the MBA's. A tax system which subsidized these people at the expense of everybody else would rightfully be rejected.

Why can't the loan be transferred to the government who could then attach the debt to the paychecks of these poor working stiffs as the IRS does to college arrearage? If you don't have much income, the attachment is much lower. The government would then distribute the money to the debtors...?