The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans
apnews.com
apnews.com
>> On Friday the justices upheld that ruling, finding that Missouri has standing to challenge the debt-relief program because the financial harms to MOHELA from the program will also harm Missouri. Missouri created MOHELA to help state residents obtain student loans to pay for college, Roberts reasoned. It is operated by “state officials and state appointees, reports to the State, and may be dissolved by the State.” If the debt-relief program goes into effect, he observed, MOHELA’s revenues will fall, “impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students” – which in turn “is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”
Not that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something along these lines, but it needs to be Congress right? Commentary about this seemed to split along party lines so not sure if there is some legitimate interpretation where this might be constitutional…
It's pretty bad, in my opinion, that the court even reached the merits, because the plaintiffs obviously do not have standing. None of the states were able to show direct financial injury. Instead, they tried to use Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But then why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit?
SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to strike the program down, and this is becoming a theme with the current court. A court that doesn't concern itself with technical correctness is no court at all, but rather a legislature.
SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to make a policy decision. The current court is making radical changes to established law, such as last term's decision to throw out much of the VRA simply because the justices felt it was too old and no longer needed. (It was re-authorized in 2006.) Allowing judges to throw out the decisions of the legislature or executive on major policy questions, with a flimsy and partisan legal basis, is not a sustainable way to run a democracy.
BTW I think current "standing" rules are a travesty and courts should stop dismissing cases on those grounds. It's just a way to weasel out of making certain decisions they don't want to. For example it's pretty clear that someone is harmed by the President giving out $400 million, there's no such thing as free money.
We already did, though, at a much higher per-capita cost, and a total program cost of about twice what this would have cost.
https://boingboing.net/2022/08/24/jared-kushner-kanye-west-j...
Okay, but don't you think it's at least a little fucked up that we already bailed out the rich people, but we stopped there?
But certainly you can understand the optics of it, right? We've spent billions bailing out rich people 3 times in the last 15 years, and suddenly there's a massive pushback against helping out the lower classes?
I'd like you to at least acknowledge the optics.
However, I find it super interesting hearing people talk about how terrible high inflation or high interest rates for loans/mortgages are today. All while student loan interest rates have been higher for decades.
So it's basically the pooled risk rate where good debtors cover the additional risk of poor debtors.
The good debters are not covering the bad debters in this case.
I'm not saying they'd be just as well off if they didn't go to University; what I'm saying is this: In 1960, <10% of Americans graduated University. If you took the type of people who would go to University, and then had them not go to University, they'd likely have greater career outcomes than other people who didn't go to University because of characteristics that were not affected going to education such as parental success, personal ambition, intelligence, etc. This means that the supposed return to education is possibly less than how it appears because those characteristics are a confound that are entirely separate from the knowledge you learn at University.
Universities seem to have taken advantage of the "need" to attend by raising prices, competing for students with excessive luxuries (compared to universities in other countries), and by achieving near perfect price discrimination through the use of scholarships (which allow them to charge each customer's willingness to pay -- a very desirable achievement!) At the same time, we've seen the Administrative class become more bloated, and the power and influence of professors decrease. For instance:
"In 2003, when 5,307 undergraduate students studied on campus, the University employed 3,500 administrators and managers. In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on student enrollment, only 600 more students were living and studying at Yale, yet the number of administrators had risen by more than 1,500 — a nearly 45 percent hike." [0]
It seems that the increase in non-educational spending has no signs of slowing down, and as long as Americans are willing to pay the high education costs, we shouldn't expect University budgets or spending to decrease. Which brings the question: what happens if we make education free? It's obviously not actually free, someone has to pay for it, and it would be the American taxpayer in some way. But how can we get Universities to pull back spending? How do we get them to focus on educational spending and increasing human capital rather than administrative headcount or the university of experience?
That's my issue with the situation. We shouldn't have this loan issue -- University shouldn't cost this much to begin, and paying the Universities to solve a problem (i.e. high cost) that they created seems like a terrible incentive.
[0] https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-...
DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education
https://www.amazon.com/DIY-Edupunks-Edupreneurs-Transformati...
There’s something obvious going on that is unfortunately opaque to almost everyone making decisions about higher Ed:
The average college student is 26, with kids, a full time job and often a single parent.
Something very different has happened in our society in the last 50 years - it is not possible to get a “live-able wage” for most without a college degree.
Credentialism has seen every profession require a college degree for a job, even when there’s no underlying basis for it.
It’s become a shortcut for limiting the number of candidates a company needs to consider.
So a degree is required to live, a loan is required to get a degree, and the cost of the degree & the loan are rising while wages are net negative.
Student loans were, from the start, designed by corporate financial architects who became the owners of the loans. They made fortunes on the interest payments.
The reason we brokered this deal politically is social progressives wanted education for all and fiscal conservatives wanted recipients to “pay for it”.
It looked like that would work in the 70s, but today both the borrower and the lender are paying more for the loan structure than the goods cost to deliver.
It’s a special kind of insanity in human history - we are the first civilization to intentionally burden our best and brightest at the start of their lives with debt, then servicing the debt to the point the interest will outrun the principal.
Student loan forgiveness is our only way out.
Students got a break. 2 years+ of 0 payments and 0 interest. I took advantage of it and finished paying off my loans. Some individuals I know were purchasing fun cars because the loans were getting "cancelled".
You take on DEBT, you should have an expectation of paying it.
Anyway, charging interest on tuition debt seems so backwards to me. We should reward people getting educated, not punish them.
Yes! The idea is that education is the foundation for making a country better prepared in the future. If the US truly wants to invest in its future, education should be the foundation of all plans.
https://www.unesco.org/en/higher-education/need-know
https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/investingineducationpaysrichdi...
>> The report warns however that private sector development does not solve the problem of access in the survey countries, which often have high levels of inequality and poverty, and where the poor may not be able to pay for education.
Maybe one of the Europeans can chime in, don't the Germans offer tuition free education BUT it must be for a productive degree (e.g. STEM) and there are serious academic qualifications that have to be met. At that point you can just consider it a government-funded scholarship, it's not free money, there are conditions to be met.
Full-time studies (in the Polish language) at the state Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are free for Polish students and foreigners who commence studies in Poland on terms applicable to Polish citizens (see: define your status). These include citizens of the EU/EEA and students who hold the Polish Charter (Karta Polaka). All other foreigners are required to pay tuition fees that on average are the following:
EUR 2000 per year for the first, second and long cycle studies,
EUR 3000 per year for postgraduate as well as scientific, arts, specialist and post-doctoral internships,
EUR 2000 per year for an annual preparatory Polish language course to commence studies in Polish
AFAIR all public education is tuition free and only has administrative cost associated.
I think we really need to tackle this. Some people just make stupid decisions. Maybe they don't know any better? Maybe they are dreamers?
Someone I know personally got a "useless" degree, I have told her multiple times to do research on what prospects she will have after graduation and what kind of ROI she can expect. She got the loans anyway and ended up taking a job that she could have gotten without the education. Total waste of 4 years.
I think art is essential for us humans, but do we need art degrees?
We also need to tackle the cost of higher education.
All my decisions are based on efficiency and ROI. I have build up a decent net worth but my happiness has been trending down.
In most countries around the world higher education is free (or almost free) if you have the grades to be admitted, it's very a natural process. The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility) in the U.S is the exception and is honestly crazy to me. How can you even speak of 'merit' in such society?
Doctors and medical professionals are among the highest paid in this country[1]. Paying off their student loans makes the least sense.
> The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility)
This is so absurdly false. It's a false narrative that's been pushed by higher-learning institutions for decades, and now regular people believe it. You do not need a piece of paper to earn a tremendous amount in this country. So very many blue-collar jobs earn six figures annually.
What's required to have social and economic mobility is a work ethic and skill. It's that simple.
It's a myth you need a piece of paper to earn well and live well. It needs to die.
We puppy-mill thousands of useless graduates each year and then are shocked they earn so little doing basic office work. In some cases, it's a complete inversion of what people expect - more degree less pay.
[1] https://theinterviewguys.com/highest-paying-blue-collar-jobs...
https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/jobs/working-class-jobs...
It's easy. I clicked the 3rd link on google.
If you live in a world where you believe you must have a piece of paper to earn six figures - then you've been lied to and you've bought into the lie. In other words, you've been made the fool.
There's so much evidence a degree is not necessary to have a very good life with a great income. You just choose to ignore it because it does not fit into whatever false-truth you've chosen to believe.
That link, which is funny because it’s basically blog spam, lists: ATC(school and years of experience required), pilot(school and years of crap pay to break into those numbers), and then lists a bunch of other careers that don’t pay six figures or still require a degree (and you’ll be competing against people who have degrees to get).
Perhaps you are the one who should stop ignoring reality and update your beliefs. Best of luck with that!
You do not seem to believe hard work and skill development leads to higher pay.
If you flip burgers at In-n-Out, you will not earn much ($15-20 per hour). If you manage an In-n-Out after putting in years of learning the business and working your way up - you earn close to, and more than often exceed, six figures.
Go ahead - look it up. Place some effort into your argument.
The point being - if someone can be trained to replace you in a day or less, you are not worth much.
ATC does not require a degree either [1]. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.
You don't have to believe me - you just have to put effort into your arguments. Careful - it might shatter your perceived reality.
There's no shortcuts in life. Hard work and developed skills earn big bucks no matter the field.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/be-atc#:~:text=Be%20younger%20than%2031%...
And the ATC not needing schooling is misleading. You’re only getting accepted via experience if you’ve served in the military as an ATC. Otherwise you need a degree. Go read the BLS overview: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a...
Also I’ve put effort into my argument, not that it required much. You’ve moved the goalposts from oh so many six figure blue collar jobs to maybe you can be a manager at in and out. Which just confirms the OPs point of a degree being necessary for real social mobility. Unless you think everyone in the country can be an in and out manager.
And finally, hard work doesn’t always earn big bucks. Plenty of people work grueling jobs and get paid crap. The break their bodies for nothing. You are just spouting more ideological garbage.
Grueling has nothing to do with developing skills. You do not seem to comprehend this.
You need to develop skills that are not trainable in short duration.
What do all of the job types in the provides sources require? Hard work to develop skills that are not easily replaceable. That is what earns the big bucks. It's so simple, it's bewildering it needs to be said.
Your BLS link states "typical" - ie. not required, and only mentions associates degrees from community colleges. Additionally, the link to the actual agency itself, the FAA, as provided above, clearly indicates no higher education required. I don't understand how you cannot comprehend this.
You seem to think a piece of paper is somehow a shortcut to earning a large income - completely forgetting earning that piece of paper takes at a minimum 4 years - and often much longer.
You also seem to ignore majority of college graduates do not earn six figures straight out of school either. In fact, majority of college graduates do not earn anywhere near six figures[1].
In short, you are ignorant of the realities around you, and choose not to educate yourself on the facts presented and with minimal effort, available in abundance.
Minimal effort in life will cause you to have this outlook. It's disappointing you cannot understand the basic realities at play here. Work hard, develop skills, earn more. It cannot be any more simple.
With a little more effort, you too can be a high earner.
[1] https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-starting-salary-out-of....