Hacker News Reader

Comment by mempko | Hacker News Reader

Ok, now do all of it.

Effort and money needs to go into solving the problem at the source (expensive education, easy loans for low-ROI degrees). Throwing money at people who already received degrees does absolutely nothing for the next generation of students. Might even make it worse, because now they're competing with slightly older peers who were lucky enough to get their debt paid off.

Paying off people's college debt is also highly regressive. Why give $50-100K or more to people with college degrees, but nothing at all to people who didn't go to college? Doesn't make sense.

What if we met in the middle? We can accept that the root cause needs to be fixed, but we could also halt interest accumulation and penalties on the outstanding balances due while payments are still made.

We can extend and pretend mortgage backed securities but not student loan debt?

> but we could also halt interest accumulation and penalties on the outstanding balances due while payments are still made.

I'd be in favor of low interest rate consolidation programs.

But let's be clear: That's still far, far cheaper than just paying off everyone's student debt from taxpayer money.

So you knew going into college that tuition/books/boarding was $X and said yeah I am going to do that, you did the math and figured that after school it was going to be paid off in $Y years due to a college educated profession making a certain salary. Now that college is done you now want your financial obligation cleared because you have decided that college degree was too expensive.

So whats the difference between that and someone else who buys a house and realizes that they actually don't want to pay 40-50% of their income on housing payments and demands the Government/or bank give them the house for free due to it being unfairly priced?

Where I have a problem with this line of thinking is it totally throws personal responsibility out the window. You knew the costs and you signed up anyways. Do I think college costs are criminally high? absolutely. Do I think for profit diploma mills are predatory and should be shut down? yes.

I just have a huge issue with people who paid $200k-300k for a liberal arts degree where the jobs pay $30-$70k a year and then demand the government cancel their student loan debt due to it being too high. Its a slap in the face to the millions who never could go to college because they weighed the calculations and realized it does not make financial sense or came from background where they had no support for such an endeavor.

I love this fake anecdote about someone who paid 2-300k for an underwater basketweaving degree, as if it's representative of most people who went to college.

Also, where's the responsibility to colleges for selling these degrees to people (children) who have no hopes of paying them back? That's predatory. This article covers just the righting of the harm done on the people who fell into that predatory lending trap.

the "fake ancedote" is actually my Wife's actual case. She did a semester at NYU that was $38k, her entire sociology degree was around $280k for books, school and boarding. She was smart and said forget that mountain of student debt, I'd rather do state school, and she did and it took us a few years to pay off that one semester of debt at NYU.

Her best friend went to Pace and ended up with $250k of tuition/books/boarding for her liberal arts degree, so yeah total fabrication on my part :)

You didn't answer the question about the responsibility of colleges for selling this to children...

Also, you're presupposing that all liberal arts degrees are bad, and I would contest that as a person who went to a liberal arts college. Also, My takeaway from your 'anecdote' possible we should pay social workers more because the cost to get that degree isn't covered by the work that they would do afterwards...

Like health care, the increasing price of education will not be solved by giving money to the institutions that are raising their prices. They'll continue to raise prices so long as people are still giving them what they ask for.

It seems absurd to me that people think the solution to high prices is to have someone else pay part or all of it for them.

I don't think anyone has suggested this is a solution to the rising cost of education. That's a separate problem. I'd love to hear your proposal for fixing it.

This is a proposal to fix the mountain of debt that's preventing Millenials and Gen X from purchasing property and building wealth. It is only intended to fix that problem which will be a remaining symptom/problem of the increasing price of education, even if you propose a magic solution that stops education costs from increasing.

I worked very hard to pay off my loans, I don’t think my tax dollars should go to bailing people out of debt they agreed to repay.

I'm very frustrated by this perspective.

I want to live in a world full of intellectually curious, creative people who build things. I think we can best do that by giving people access to education, health care, housing, food, and physical safety.

The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive.

I think the choice is between: (1) punish people because it's fair, and live an objectively worse life because everyone around us is miserable and dysfunctional (2) tune policy to support people, and live an objectively better life because everyone around us is healthy, productive and creative.

Immiserating debt destroys lives, and destroyed lives makes all of us worse off.

Your position seems to lack guiding or limiting principles.

>"The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive."

Forgiving existing debt does not increase the level of education of the populace. Conditionally forgiving future debts could, though there would be collateral effects.

>"I think the choice is between: (1) punish people because it's fair, and live an objectively worse life because everyone around us is miserable and dysfunctional (2) tune policy to support people, and live an objectively better life because everyone around us is healthy, productive and creative."

Failing to forgive debt is not a punishment, it's just holding people to their obligations. It definitely does support them, but the question would be why only support people who took on debt? Why not support the people who made different decisions too?

>"Immiserating debt destroys lives, and destroyed lives makes all of us worse off."

If you just want to forgive debt, why limit it to student loans? Why not forgive healthcare debts? What about consumer debt after Christmas? How about gambling debt? All of those make people worse off.

> If you just want to forgive debt, why limit it to student loans? Why not forgive healthcare debts?

Now we're on the same page! We should absolutely have universal healthcare.

> What about consumer debt after Christmas? How about gambling debt?

Religious holidays and gambling do not improve our society. An educated, healthy populace does.

Your points advocate forgiving prospective debts (ones taken on in the future), not existing ones (as was the case here). You also ignore the collateral effects of encouraging increased spending on education and healthcare.

> Immiserating debt destroys lives, and destroyed lives makes all of us worse off.

I agree, but it was the choice of the people who borrowed to risk destroying their own lives, and it is not remotely fair to ask the rest of us who worked hard, made hard choices, and sacrificed things we wanted to pay back the debt of those who didn't.

I worked my way through college and commuted from my parent's home so I could afford it. I also went to a much lower-tier state school where I could get a scholarship.

I would have loved to live at school and have that experience. I would have loved to go to a higher-end but more expensive school where I didn't have a merit scholarship, and to be able to go without also working. But I sacrificed those things so that I could graduate with as little debt as I could, and I worked hard to pay that debt off.

How is it fair to now tell me I have to pay off everyone else's school who chose not to give anything up?

> I want to live in a world full of intellectually curious, creative people who build things. I think we can best do that by giving people access to education, health care, housing, food, and physical safety.

> The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive.

These people are already educated.

Debt payoff ideas send money to people with degrees, but they do nothing for people didn't go to college or who haven't yet graduated.

The problem needs to be solved at the source, not periodically bailed out after the fact. If you just pour more money into the system, tuition will skyrocket and people will become insensitive to the astronomical prices. Why even price compare if you just expect the government to pay it off for you later? Expenses would continue to spiral out of control at an accelerated rate.

Exactly. The lower the risk to borrowing, and the easier it is to borrow, the higher tuition prices will go.

“I think we can best do that by giving people access to education, health care, housing, food, and physical safety.”

No one is “punishing” anyone. There are homeless people freezing to death who could use the money.

You are conflating life and death necessities like food and shelter with someone wanting to binge drink for 4 years while getting an underwater basketweaving degree.

Bernie did the same thing.

Here's the thing I love about these arguments, they choose the most BS degrees instead of arguing from a stronger case of actually societally helpful degrees that people get and still can't pay off loans with. If you want me to pretend like you have a strong case stop picking literally the stupidest degrees that no one is complaining about.

I know plenty of people who went to 4-year colleges to get Social Studies degrees, and then went on to do social work, and guess what? Social Work doesn't pay well enough to make up for that. In one case I know, literally helping the homeless people who are freezing to death. And the person had to stop doing that work cause they still couldn't pay off their loans.

Hey, me too, man. That's why it costs me $1 million per student per year to teach them how to be like that. The right thing for the government to do is to pay for their high-quality education from me. All my friends have been to Université de Rene and they are very intellectually curious and creative. I'll tell them to apply to your new government policy to forgive the loan.

You could even simplify it and just give me the money. I have like 100 students this year. Will direct debit be okay?

To achieve an educated population the core problem of wildly inflated cost of college education needs to be dealt with.

Otherwise you have to repeatedly forgive the debt. The message you are sending is to consume without regard for prices or temperance as that will be rewarded in the end.

This acts as a negative externality as it erodes trust in the rule of law (many countries do operate like this, and they are terrible places to live)

> The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive.

What are they?

If you feel so compelled, you already are welcome to donate your money for these causes.

I encourage you to spend your money supporting the ideas in which you believe.

Let us know how it goes.

Fortunately, human beings have gathered into societies which allow them to act in concert and for the benefit of all members of said society.

If you'd prefer to not take part in these social structures, feel free to leave.

Let us know how it goes. Or don't.

I believe that personal accountability for making the best of one's lot is key to society being maximally beneficial.

I don't see why "acting in concert" implies forcing me to pay for things in direct opposition to my heartfelt belief via the coercive levers of government. Go find likeminded bleeding hearts and have a nongovernmental ball.

Why can't debt forgiveness take the Jerry Lewis/Shriners private donation route?

Then you'll do you. I'll do me. We'll all win.

I agree with you that student loan forgiveness is unfair and wrong, but this is not a helpful response, and you know that. Why even post it?

Because the GP suggests that the only options are (a) not caring or (b) taking other people's money. Clearly, that's a false dichotomy. I pointed out option (c).

They agreed because they had no choice. College is basically forced on every high schooler to the point that your guidance counselors ask you which one you choose and won’t take “none” as an answer. Ask me how I know. HR departments will also pass on your application unless it has a university listed.

With the rising costs of tuition year after year, it’s becoming unreasonable. And when they’re not dischargable during bankruptcy, it’s giving a middle finger to the poor. Saying, “F you, I got mine” doesn’t solve anything. Something needs to be done about it.

> With the rising costs of tuition year after year, it’s becoming unreasonable. And when they’re not dischargable during bankruptcy, it’s giving a middle finger to the poor. Saying, “F you, I got mine” doesn’t solve anything. Something needs to be done about it.

I completely agree. But loan forgiveness, more student loans, or lowering the risk/cost/burden of student loans will only put more money in the system and drive up prices.

Tuition costs are a horrible situation that really needs to be fixed somehow. But loan forgiveness will only make things worse.

Okay, then propose something better that will fix tuition costs. It's really easy to say "that'll never work", and really difficult to actually fix problems. If you want to make a contribution to internet forums, propose an alternative. Otherwise you're just an asshole on the internet.

If it's the bigger problem, propose a better solution. And actively prove to me that not doing this is better than doing nothing. Because what you're proposing is the status quo, and we can both agree that's really shitty at the moment.

Also, even if you fix tuition costs, it won't change the fact that there is a mountain of student loan debt that isn't going to get paid back. What should we do when people can't pay it back?

Here are some proposals:

1. Fix the college accreditation process. Currently it involves colleges wining and dining accreditors for a week. Change the standards to be more practical and open up the possibility for more colleges. We could even change the accreditation so that it allows for things like trade school and apprenticeships. I think that would certainly fix tuition costs.

2. Push for making budgeting a required high school course in more high schools.

OR Get rid of superfluous school administration jobs. There's a lot of useless or superfluous middle management in colleges. But you're not going to get rid of them because they make the hiring decisions.

1. I don't know anything about the accreditation process, but sure, if there's excess spending there then not allowing people to bribe accreditors definitely seems like a positive decision. I can't imagine that fixes millions of dollars worth of tuition cost... But ultimately not opposed to it.

2. Famously high schools teaching people classes means they use it later on in life. Not saying we shouldn't teach people budgeting, just that I doubt that it will fix the number of kids that go to college when high schools also want people to go to college.

I didn't go. Could have went for free even, still didn't go.

During interviews for my current position as an L6 in the AV space I wasn't asked until a degree until post offer, and even that was a recruiter asking in passing.

Turns out you can just... not go to college and learn things on your own.

I don't necessarily agree that people with bad loans should hang out to dry, but in my opinion this mess should fall on schools first.

They got to use 18 year olds to cosign unsecured loans. Simple as that.

A school can't ask a bank for a $500 million dollar unsecured loan. But it can ask tens of thousands of kids to each bring back 50k.

Now that the jig is up I want to see for-profit schools held accountable for the practice.

The class of people affected by this are not the worse off in this country. There are a lot of places where trillions of tax dollars could be a bigger help than college grads.

Just because I've paid for healthcare my entire life (including bills owed to the hospital) doesn't mean other people should have to. And just because anyone has to do something that is terrible, doesn't mean that everyone else should be required to go through that terrible experience.

Your reasoning is incredibly shortsighted and selfish.

No one is stopping you from engaging in private charity. I'm just asking you not to vote for men to come with guns to enforce your charitable endeavors.

Right now the Amish are able to 'opt out of social security.' Very much this were an option for atheists and those outside of these religious exceptions. I'd agree to sign my death warrant and never be bailed out by society if they agree to let me opt out of the insurance plan.

Single payer healthcare isn't considered charity in any other civilized country, its a government service and our private system is bloated in the first place. I'd rather have single payer over having a bunch of middle men leeching

I'm fine with some consensual system where those who opt in to it can engage in it. So long as I can opt out (of both liabilities and benefits), even if it means forever signing my rights away to public healthcare, it's all good to me. Consent about your health care decisions is important in my opinion.

>bunch of middle men leeching

Hopefully attempt here won't merely substitute administrators and insurance leeches for government bureaucrat leeches. I'm all for tossing out the leeches. Concierge / cash only medical offices are one way to do this, but a well run single payer system could probably achieve it as well.

I absolutely understand your concern about government leech's as well, I'm in the same boat. Too often do politicians just go with their friends or donors to supply services and contracts. Its a big problem that wastes a ton of money and time.

I also think your idea of being able to opt out is interesting, I think this could be a viable concept but I don't know how it would be implemented. It would seem that there might be two parallel systems if that were to happen.

I have absolutely no idea what my comment had to do with charity and have no idea what you're responding to.

> Just because I've paid for healthcare my entire life (including bills owed to the hospital) doesn't mean other people should have to

You indicate other people shouldn't have to pay for their healthcare. How were you proposing it be paid? The main options I think of are the ones I mention, either charity or men with guns to enforce payment (taxes) of this charitable endeavor. Unless you are a doctor and you'll be performing this directly for these people.

Of course, it would be incredibly shortsighted and selfish to use violence to enforce ideals of charity.

>no idea what you're responding to.

Now you know. I'm responding to you.

I agree but should there be some kind of repercussion? It isn't like the loan amount is hidden from you. If you have never had more than 1,000 in your savings account doesn't taking out a 6 figure loan trigger some alarm bells? This stuff kinda hits me in a similar manner to rehabilitation for violent offenders. It is the obvious ideal but my faith in humanity makes me skeptical of it working well.

I know if I had a loan right now I would be biden my time until it got forgiven.

I _just_ got mine paid off. I even went to one of the colleges where debt was forgiven (ITT Tech), but I didn't get one of the bullshit degrees like game design or whatever so I was able to pay mine off.

I don't yet know how I feel about this, but I can't help but think its probably best for humanity that these people can live normal lives now. On the other hand, are these people now who I'm competing with for resources (e.g. housing, etc)

All I really know is that I'm glad I finally paid mine off, at 34yrs old no less..

Huh, That's a sunk-cost fallacy if I've ever seen one.

But also, I love it when people's response to debt forgiveness is "I suffered, so other people should have to suffer too." I guess it's time to start taking people's eyes, it will save us time because we're all going to be blind sooner or later.

"Things were awful for me and they should be awful for you too"?

Why american taxpayer should pay for someone’s degree in basket weaving? While doctors and lawyers grind 100 hrs/week like crazy to pay off their college debt?

Thank you for pointing out this insanity, we'd all be better off if doctors didn't have to spend a few years grinding out million-dollar debts, and then go on to print millions over millions over the rest of their career.

I have a radical idea. Make medical school free, and expand residency slots. Whatever this will cost will more than be made up by a dramatic reduction in doctor salaries[1]... And medical costs in this country coming back down to Earth.

We don't charge people for elementary and high school because an educated population is necessary for the well-being of the country. Well, so is the availability of doctors.

[1] The average general practitioner's lifetime earnings are 8.5 million. I'll happily pay a million for their schooling, if that number could be halved.

there is nothing free, it is just someone else's money.

the money wasted on bailing out student loans - has already been pocketed by Betsy Devos alike, maybe we should stop funding 18 y.o. for useless degrees from College of Lost Hope, AL.

public schools are funded with housing property taxes, they are NOT free. Compare house prices in good school district vs bad and their tax bills

> there is nothing free, it is just someone else's money.

And in the case of doctors, it's my money, and I can either pay now, or pay five times later.

Counter: I worked very hard to minimize my student loans (I had less than 10k, and repaid them within a couple years), and I think they should be forgiven. Or at the very least, discharged with bankruptcy.

How do you feel about golden hammers and toilets?

Some wasteful government spending exists, so we shouldn't worry about any other wasteful government spending?

No, just that being a normal first world country that funds things that return real value, like an educated work force who pay back in higher taxes, is far more useful than fake spending to hide what is being done.

A 1.6 trillion handouts for colleges. It seems its not enough to have licensing, favored immigration laws, continual public subsidies: need to also throw piles of cash at them.

Pretty sure the colleges have already been paid. This would go to the people who can't pay off the mountain of debt they were given while they were still children.

Why federal gov wont claw back these billions from these same colleges that failed struggling students and their shareholders like Betsy Devos?

I think defaulted student loans should be charged back to college to create accountability

Bad idea. I had student loans up until 2018, and there should be no program that would forgive mine. I paid off $30k in debt because I got a $50k sign on bonus. People in my position absolutely should not have their debt forgiven at taxpayer's expense.

most of the outstanding student debt is held by wealthy people like lawyers and doctors. they don't need a bailout

this is definitely not true

> Accounting correctly for both human capital and effect of subsidies in student lending plans, almost a third of all student debt is owed by the wealthiest 20 percent of households and only 8 percent by the bottom 20 percent. Across-the-board student loan forgiveness is regressive measured by income, family affluence, educational attainment—and also wealth.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/01/st...

Over 80% of students have less than $30K of debt.

The highest debt loads obviously go to expensive graduate degrees like lawyers and doctors. Medical school is vastly more expensive than a regular college degree.

That's why none of the proposals would actually wipe all student debt. Plans to pay off the first $10K of debt and such would be far more equitable than just paying off everyone's debt. The latter would vastly benefit graduate degree holders, a cohort which has the highest earnings and lowest unemployment. Would be terribly dumb to do that.

Maybe not strictly doctors and lawyers but if you have a college degree then you statistically make more money than if you didnt. Why send money to those people and not to the people who make less money?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com