(Not saying Incoming Sharing Agreements's are bad, we just have to be careful...)
As a preliminary matter this is false...student loans are dischargable in bankruptcy, they are just treated differently than other debt. However, there is a reason everyone thinks student loans aren't dischargable and the myth persists...
>the incentive structure of "we don't make money unless our education helps you do so" seems like an order of magnitude better than the alternative.
Not when the real alternative is student loan forgiveness and free tuition moving forward. The issue is framing the problem as student loans for life or a financier owning a % of your labor for life, when there are other models.
Seeing as no "mainstream" political party candidate is running on this platform, I think the answer is no. Of course, I would probably say the same of any campaign issue any mainstream candidate is running on due current political climate of our 2 party system.
Whats interesting is if this candidate won the election, perhaps the 2 parties would have no choice but to concede the issue, if for nothing else to realign themselves with their own constituents and win back their votes. Then again maybe we can extend the market saying "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" to politics "political parties can remain irrational longer than you can vote."
Private loans, IIRC, are dischargable with a lower standard, but it escapes me what the standard actually is.
I have gotten student loans ($100k+) discharged for clients.
My experience is most people who say student loans are not dischargable have never gone through bankruptcy and have no idea what the process is to discharge regular debts nor student loans. This is true of even some lawyers, who are more than happy to take your fee, but don't know what they are actually doing.
Of course, the constitution is only as powerful as we are willing to follow it -- but I'm pretty comfortable that the slope between people agreeing to pool their income voluntarily and people being forced into servitude isn't all that slippery.
Historically, college was an upper class pursuit because the upper classes could afford it. You introduce student loans and then instruments to make them more easily accessible to anyone, you end up with the current debacle.
Part of the cause of the current debacle is the fact that it takes more than the right degree to establish a sufficient income to make traditional student loans make sense. You also need job hunting skills, availability of good paying jobs and a personal situation conducive to working full-time. This means no health crises, unexpected pregnancies or other family problems imposing on your time.
What we've learned is that the bet involved in the current student loan process is a bet that still leaves a lot of lower class people in a situation where college is a bad bet that may just deepen their financial problems and de facto keep them trapped in poverty.
I don't know if this solution is the right solution, but I do think the goals and ideas driving these experiments are healthy impetuses. We need to continue to try to find societal patterns and practices that help lower income people have the opportunity to rise. It's better for society overall.
The tendency for the principle of "them that has, gets" to deepen class divides is one that needs constant push back. Otherwise, it foments bloody revolution.
We already have memes like "Eat the rich" which point to deep resentment and bitterness of the "peasant" classes. You would have to be a fool to think that's not anything to be concerned about.
Shares of this nature would be regulated as securities. Which would bring a great many uncomfortable requirements to the table.
Just as a for instance, I'll just point out that corporations have Boards of Directors and shareholder meetings. Both of which potentially determine and direct any future actions the corporation is allowed to take.