Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohawk | Hacker News Reader

Borrowing money is risky, and includes risks beyond a straight up cost/benefit analysis. It also makes the borrow more vulnerable (not just to the lender, but to others as well). It should never be entered into lightly.

I sympathize with these folks who have gotten themselves into this situation, but they did make the choice of their own free will. If they didn't do a proper analysis ahead of time, it doesn't seem fair to shift the cost of their decision onto others who did, or who are responsibly shouldering the burden that they took on.

There is a definite moral hazard in the current system (it encourages indebtedness and inflates the cost of education), but that doesn't make it right to create another moral hazard in trying to correct it.

View on HN

For those trying to escape poverty, disadvantaged teenagers must choose between debt and the permanent surrender of their hopes and dreams. Hardly a situation where the borrower can be expected to make a dispassionate calculation, nor is it a situation where there's a clearly correct course to be found.

Education used to be 'free' here in The Netherlands (certain amount of money each month for students). They recently turned this into a full fledged loan. Although the interest is very low it dramatically changes how students approach studies and immediately start to think in terms of ROI ... I fear for the future of Dutch education. I'm glad I just wrapped up my undergrad and am currently borrowing as well for my Master's but thankfully (I'm one of the few) who have 'great' career prospects.

The American system is really really screwed up if you are trying to escape poverty.

I think in the USA college is too expensive, but I'm not convinced it should be free. I like the idea of students actually having some skin in the game. Also I don't want tax dollars to pay for someone to study poetry for 4 years for free. You'll get into a situation like Norway, where it takes a master's to get a foot in the door, and no one gets a job until they are 30.

Compared to USA Norway has a very high living standard and an extremely good social care system, USA is ages behind that, really very much behind. Also participation in politics and society is much better organized and more effective than what we see in the pseudo-democratic system that USA represents today.

So free eduction may play a role in producing positive results for the whole society. Also maybe the poets are more important to this than a person from a country where no free education is available can understand.

Please also read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

> Also I don't want tax dollars to pay for someone to study poetry for 4 years for free.

In a certain sense you already are, by indirectly bearing the costs of widespread loan defaults. At least the government is in a position to effectively address the overabundance of worthless degrees being issued.

> Also I don't want tax dollars to pay for someone to study poetry for 4 years for free.

I do. Society needs poets.

Take in mind that music industry could not exist without poetry. A successful song with fine lyrics can have a huge impact in the economy.

Imma let you finish, but http://seatsmart.com/blog/lyric-intelligence/

No. Military service is still an option. The education benefits are excellent.

No. Society forced them into that choice.

What on earth makes you think the choice was not coerced? A student before the age of 18 is presented with an option. Here's one path - be in massive debt. Here's the other path - your hopes and dreams are shit. That's freedom? Hardly.

It's funny how all the moral hazard trolls come out of the woodwork as soon as something benefits poor people. Bank bailouts? No hazard. Corporate tax cuts? No hazard. Corporate subsidy? No hazard. Private prisons? No hazard. Help indentured slaves? HAZARD!

No. Ignorance is to blame. Can the 18 year old be expected to make good financial decision? Probably not, especially if they only have a government school education which most likely does not teach basic economics. However, does that 18 year old not have parents?

And what do we end up with when these 18 year olds become 23 year olds with a load of debt and still no basic idea of economics or understanding what it means to go into debt? We end end up with an even bigger problem.

Also, government is not society.

I respectfully disagree. No one is forced to take out a loan and go to college or university. You said it yourself, they do have options.

There might however be a lot more traction on one of the paths as compared to the other.

You're presenting this proposition as that the only way someone can make it, is by pursuing a higher education (with severe debt). I, again respectfully disagree. It is not that binary.

First of all, the path of not going into higher education is not as ridiculous as you make it sound.

Secondly, there are many variations of how to finance your higher education. You do not have to take out a loan. Especially not for the full duration of your studies.

Agreed. I feel for these students as well, as there are a lot of social pressures to go to college.

But that empathy is short lived. We all have a free will. All these students could do the math prior to the commitment (I did!) and see the mountain of debt they'd be in. To say that it was someone else's fault is just yet another cop-out of a generation where it is socially acceptable to walk away from commitments and refuse to accept responsibility.

You act as if the consequences were clear. Whatever analysis even the most sober and risk-averse 18-year-old student did in 2005 about her student loans could not have predicted the massive economic flustercluck we've been through in the past 10 years. Flawed inflation and wage growth assumptions alone have already likely doubled the long-term cost of those loans, even if you assume the student found the job they were essentially promised when they committed to the deal. The fact is that these kids were misled by a delusional society and egged on by greedy loan providers and desperately underfunded state universities.

You call it a moral hazard to forgive the debt, but the students who took the loans are the least-bad actors in this scenario.

Lending money is risky, and includes risks beyond a straight up cost/benefit analysis. It also makes the lender more vulnerable (not just to the borrower, but to others as well). It should never be entered into lightly.

What I mean is this: a lender who cannot choose who to lend to wisely will be pushed out of a free market. If the people they are lending to cannot pay them back in large numbers, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com