# student loan forgiveness



## sleewell

kind of a hot topic right now. where you do you land?

personally i am against it. i think shit ideas like this and defund the police (which i know is not exactly what they mean) are some of the reasons that the dems didn't do as well as they could have in the last election. 

i know that college is fucked. tuition goes up every year, its way too expensive. BUT you know what you are agreeing to when you sign the papers. you can't agree to repay the money, get the money, and then expect the balance to be wiped clean. doesn't work that way when you get a mortgage or car loan. doesn't seem fair to the people who paid their loans back. doesn't seem fair to the tax payers who backed the loans. 

I can see the other side of the argument that it would allow those people to put that money back into the economy but that just doesn't hold enough water for me. 


thoughts? change my mind?


----------



## Xaios

Here's the thing about fairness: if you're forced into a situation for which your choices are a) be exploited financially by unscrupulous lenders in order to get an education, or b) limit your earnings potential and potentially live in poverty, neither choice is really fair, especially when you consider that many who received and paid back student loans and are now grousing about how "unfair" it is did so at a time when both the cost of tuition and lending rates weren't nearly as predatory. Personal accountability means jack shit when your only choices lead you to indentured servitude for the rest of your life.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'm not taking my time to talk at the table mug guy for something pretty much the rest of the world has figured out ages ago.


----------



## sleewell

i disagree. go to a community college for the first two years. all of those credits transfer just same and its a fraction of the price. actually work a job while going to school. you don't have to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a degree. i worked like 35 hours a week while going to school. i could get on board with lowering the interest rates. that def has validity. 


haven't other countries figured it out by imposing sky high taxes?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Yep, sky high (but not really) taxes for healthcare, education, infrastructure, aged care, childcare, and economic freedom.

Don't need any of that. Our bootstraps and rugged individualism will raise our children and cure our cancer.

Again, the rest of the world has this one figured out. We're just stupid assholes. The perennial butt of the joke to the developed, actually free, world.


----------



## Xaios

sleewell said:


> i worked like 35 hours a week while going to school. i could get on board with lowering the interest rates. that def has validity.


Hurray for you, but guess what: that's not always an option. When I was going to college, I did homework from the time I got home to the time I went to bed, and worked on labs (and every class I had besides the math courses had weekly labs) or projects on weekends. Everyday, for years. I hardly played guitar. I didn't game. I had no social life. My "free time" was essentially going to the grocery store. To add insult to injury, my program ran a full month longer in the winter/spring semester than _every_ other program, because it was literally cramming what was once a 3 year program into two years. The social and work life you are able to experience while in college is heavily dependent on what program you're in, so saying that everyone should just work a full time job while going to college is really shortsighted.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

I think too many people go to University for degrees that they don’t need, the U.K. calls them Mickey Mouse degrees, not sure if you have that term in the USA. They include things like degrees in surfing or gym management or historically here, the easiest degree was ‘media studies’. I know a girl who wrote her thesis on the 1989 Batman movie...

I object to paying for someone to watch films or read comic books for three years but with our NHS struggling to recruit, would have no problem with my taxes coming to pay for doctors and nurses to get their training.

I’m old enough that I got my first degree paid for by the state but got scholarships for my master’s and PhD.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

The fact that students have to pay this much to go to school is insane. The banks that prey upon them and the parents that encourage them to go to college instead of learning a trade are part of the problem imo. I don’t think student loan forgiveness is the answer and I don't feel that the rest of American society should be burdened with that debt. Screw Sallie Mae after the billions of dollars they’ve made by selling the promise of a better life through education to people that weren’t equipped to take on the burden of often times life-long student debt.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think making community college free makes sense IMO. I do not agree with university reimbursement or anything like that.

I think it is important to help out the lowest rung so they can get a blue collar trade job, but I see no way that making all college free makes sense.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

I think schools are predatory and unscrupulous with their tuition costs. When even techs/community college prices have gone up significantly, something is seriously wrong. There is a CC near my house that is at close to 6k a semester for certain programs.
Professional schools like DVM, DNP, CRNA, DDS, and MD are all well over 500k usd in a lot of places which is absolutely insane.
DVM in particular is absurd, as your earning potential is nowhere near as high as the others given the debt you're saddled with.
To really put that into perspective, there's an interview with a UMN veterinarian alum who said he managed to pay for vet school with just a part time job and total cost was something like a couple grand a year. Granted, that was in the 70s and that would be utterly impossible nowadays.

There are certain loan forgiveness programs for medical professions already in place, but they're not eay to get. There are other option like the military, but that is definitely not a good fit for most people.
Wiping the debt is for lack of better terms a bandaid on a bullethole.
The bigger systemic issue is that schools realized they can rip off both taxpayers via federal loans, and rip off students by moving educational goalposts/making them take extra crap unrelated to their area of study.

When I was getting my BSN the school changed the filler bullshit (eg they added extra requirements where you had to take anthropology/diversity/sociology regardless of degree) for graduating three times in 4 years. I'm still mad years later about being forced to take classes that were utterly useless to me, even though my GI Bill covered most of my schooling.
That moving of goalposts to keep people trapped in school is a very real thing ime. CRNA used to be a masters program in most place, but now the CCNE has made it doctorate level (or they will by 2022). Same thing happened with Physical Therapists. It used to be a Masters level program, and is now a doctorate pretty much nationwide.
The PT one in particular is insane, as their earning potential is nowhere near worth how much debt they take on.
Yet another example is with Psychology. My cousin is engaged to a woman with a masters in psychology and she's a licensed psychologist. She's told me that the certifying board is changing so that it's only Doctorates.
Same thing is happening in teaching. You can barely get work part time in some areas if you only have a bachelors in child education. I know a number of teachers that have 2nd jobs just to make ends meet.

I feel there should be more stringent federal regulation about regulating education costs. Kids shouldn't be crippled with a useless degree (which is partly their own fault tbf) or the inability to pay it off.

An interesting thing to note is I've heard grumblings from the UK where they're having a similar issue with the moving of educational goalposts/tuition prices far outpacing earnings . So it's not just a USA problem.


----------



## SpaceDock

I thought this was an interesting read: https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/616993/

Long story short, the guy thinks that too many fancy degrees and not enough fancy jobs is a big part of our social decline as the people with qualifications and no rewards become instigators of dissent.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

_MonSTeR_ said:


> I think too many people go to University for degrees that they don’t need, the U.K. calls them Mickey Mouse degrees, not sure if you have that term in the USA. They include things like degrees in surfing or gym management or historically here, the easiest degree was ‘media studies’. I know a girl who wrote her thesis on the 1989 Batman movie...
> 
> I object to paying for someone to watch films or read comic books for three years but with our NHS struggling to recruit, would have no problem with my taxes coming to pay for doctors and nurses to get their training.
> 
> I’m old enough that I got my first degree paid for by the state but got scholarships for my master’s and PhD.



Yeah, there are degrees with dubious utility and prospects but they make up such a small portion of graduates, something like less than 5% after two years, and a significant drop off after that.


----------



## Demiurge

Maybe it's coming from some manner of "privilege", but my student loans weren't much due to scholarships so the idea really doesn't bug me at all. It was a nuisance more than anything, except for when it nearly fucked by debt-to-income when I tried buying a home right out of school. Maybe if my loans were a millstone around the neck like for some, I'd feel differently. It's investment that would pay-off eventually. Young people entering the work force with more education and more purchasing power is good for society, even from a capitalist standpoint.

I agree with only making some level of it free, though. If you want to go to Fancy Pants University, pay up.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

Yeah, the U.K. used to have free university education, but it was a lot harder to get to university in the first place. In 1992 the government granted the polytechnics university status and all of a sudden there were twice as many places to go to and competition for places was a lot less fierce.

University fees started in the U.K. in 1998 and have just gone up and up ever since but they’re capped at the moment at like £10k a year.


----------



## budda

Someone make a pros and cons list for this.


----------



## nightflameauto

I do think there should be free or subsidized community college available in the states. As it is the "real" universities around here are building multi-million dollar sports centers every few years and then whining about how they can't afford to keep the lights on if they don't raise tuition. That type of shit makes me think they need some regulators shoved up their collective asses, but regulation just leads to even higher fees for the students based on history.

Talking about this subject in the states is a lot like talking about the health care conundrum. Payment by the plebes continues to climb, hospitals continue to look more and more like massive high-dollar hotels or mansions, administrators continue to whine about not being able to afford to pay doctors or nurses, and insurance industries show record profits year over year yet whine they have to raise rates to continue to pay out for service for the people that pay in. It's a massive joke that's been handled in actual civilized countries, while we continue to get jerked around by a system designed primarily to suck money out of our pockets for no return on investment.

College, at this point, appears to work much the same way. Massive debt for a degree that might net you a burger flipping job or a warehouse job. I've got a friend with a doctorate in psychology that works as a phone service person for a bank. And another friend that spent a massive amount of money to get an accounting degree working as an oil change tech at the local Ford dealership. I'm not really seeing the payoff to huge college debt for those folks.


----------



## diagrammatiks

school is a racket.

although doctorates that aren't medical professions shouldn't have any grad school debt.


----------



## Necris

I'm in favor of student loan debt forgiveness. 
However, I think that the idea that there would be any significant student loan forgiveness under Biden is beyond wishful thinking.
Biden is a man who received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from credit companies between 2003-2008 and enthusiastically supported a 2005 bill which stripped bankruptcy protections from students. In years prior to that Biden's name was on a number of bills which are now viewed as the origins of the current student loan debt crisis. He's never spoken against his previous record, why anyone believes he'd completely reverse his position now is beyond me.

The concept was brought up on the campaign trail as an empty talking point meant to push millennials and gen-x to the polls and the most that can be expected, in the unlikely event anything at all is even brought to the table, will be means tested to hell and back and almost no-one will qualify.


----------



## nightflameauto

Necris said:


> I'm in favor of student loan debt forgiveness. However, I think that the idea that there would be any student loan forgiveness under Biden, the guy who received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from credit companies between 2003-2008, an enthusiastic supporter of a 2005 bill which stripped bankruptcy protections from students and who had previously supported numerous bills which helped create the student loan debt crisis in the first place, is beyond wishful thinking. The concept was brought up on the campaign trail as an empty talking point meant to push millennials to the polls and the most that can be expected, in the unlikely event anything at all is even brought to the table, will be means tested to hell and back and almost no-one will qualify. Ideas the Biden camp have floated now that he's won cap debt forgiveness at $10,000 maximum and exclude federal loans.


The best we can hope for under Biden, with or without a Republican majority to block his every move, is a return to slowly and gently fucking the population rather than gang-raping them with railroad spiked baseball bats while screaming obscenities in their face.


----------



## StevenC

This is another shining example of American Stockholm Syndrome. Or American Exceptionalism as your condition euphemises it.

In the UK:

Scotland gives free third level education to all its people in at least Scotland, and reduced fees everywhere else, plus reduced fees for UK people in general at around £2000
Wales gives free third level education to all its people no matter where they go in the world
England caps costs at £9k a year, but some universities are much lower
Northern Irish people get reduced fees for our our university at around £4k that the English would pay £9k for, and similar fees at our other university
Northern Irish students are also eligible for almost free third level education in the Republic of Ireland
Republic of Ireland gives free third level education to Irish citizens in its universities
You do not have to make loan repayments until you are making over £21k a year and there are different rates depending on income as well
All student debt disappears when at 40 or 45 regardless of how much you've paid
The upshot of this is you need to make an average of about £75k a year after you leave university to pay off your entire loan in the 20-ish years allotted
Did I mention it takes 3 years to get a Bachelor's degree, an additional for a Master's, 3 additional years (usually) to get a PhD, 4 years (total) to become a lawyer, 5 years to become a dentist and 5 years to become a medical doctor (6 at Cambridge, but you graduate after 3 years with an additional biomedical science BSc)
The caveat for this is you only get 4 years of student loans.

Other parts of the world give free university to everyone.

Additionally, where I come from, we have one of the best education systems in the world, and I went to the best high school in my country for 7 years for free. The second best was just down the street, also free, and both in a town of approximately 15,000 people.

My cousin is a doctor and worked in America for a while. His fellow junior doctors did not believe him that he became a doctor for about $1000 at 23. My best friend has a BSc, MD and just got her MRCS (surgeon, now called Miss not Dr) at 25.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> Massive debt for a degree that might net you a burger flipping job or a warehouse job. I've got a friend with a doctorate in psychology that works as a phone service person for a bank. And another friend that spent a massive amount of money to get an accounting degree working as an oil change tech at the local Ford dealership. I'm not really seeing the payoff to huge college debt for those folks.


This is something that needs to be addressed. We've now got generations of people who were told to go to school to get jobs, only to find there were no jobs to be had. Now, some of this was simply wishful thinking on the part of people who enrolled in those programs. My cousin has a bachelor's degree in history, and now works stocking shelves at a grocery store. My uncle has two masters degrees in biblical studies. He's now a realtor. Really, there are a fair few programs where the only even half-likely career path is to go into teaching the very subject you just finished going to school for.

But it's not restricted to those programs that are traditionally viewed as being a dead end. Even me, I got a diploma in electronics engineering tech. The reason I enrolled was because, according to government and industry forecasts at the time, it was an industry that was set to really expand in the next few years. In fact, in order to get financing, I had to prove that I'd be able to get a job upon graduation. Unfortunately, the job market for EE techs in Canada completely evaporated while I was in my last year. It was only about a month ago that I started a job in my vocation.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> This is something that needs to be addressed. We've now got generations of people who were told to go to school to get jobs, only to find there were no jobs to be had. Now, some of this was simply wishful thinking on the part of people who enrolled in those programs. My cousin has a bachelor's degree in history, and now works stocking shelves at a grocery store. My uncle has two masters degrees in biblical studies. He's now a realtor. Really, there are a fair few programs where the only even half-likely career path is to go into teaching the very subject you just finished going to school for.
> 
> But it's not restricted to those programs that are traditionally viewed as being a dead end. Even me, I got a diploma in electronics engineering tech. The reason I enrolled was because, according to government and industry forecasts at the time, it was an industry that was set to really expand in the next few years. In fact, in order to get financing, I had to prove that I'd be able to get a job upon graduation. Unfortunately, the job market for EE techs in Canada completely evaporated while I was in my last year. It was only about a month ago that I started a job in my vocation.


Sadly, the cure for this is the states is having companies sponsor what is essentially a trade school to teach post high school students precisely the skills they need to work at that company. Google and Facebook have already spun up trial classes and Apple is considering it. I can't imagine a huge corporate sponsored school teaching anything other than pure indoctrination into the purity of the corporation itself. I can't really see that ending well for society at large.


----------



## JSanta

Xaios said:


> This is something that needs to be addressed. We've now got generations of people who were told to go to school to get jobs, only to find there were no jobs to be had. Now, some of this was simply wishful thinking on the part of people who enrolled in those programs. My cousin has a bachelor's degree in history, and now works stocking shelves at a grocery store. My uncle has two masters degrees in biblical studies. He's now a realtor. Really, there are a fair few programs where the only even half-likely career path is to go into teaching the very subject you just finished going to school for.
> 
> But it's not restricted to those programs that are traditionally viewed as being a dead end. Even me, I got a diploma in electronics engineering tech. The reason I enrolled was because, according to government and industry forecasts at the time, it was an industry that was set to really expand in the next few years. In fact, in order to get financing, I had to prove that I'd be able to get a job upon graduation. Unfortunately, the job market for EE techs in Canada completely evaporated while I was in my last year. It was only about a month ago that I started a job in my vocation.



And not for nothing, the government is at least partially to blame for making it appear like everyone needs degrees. When I was working in the defense sector, contracts (from the Government) had education requirements for around 90% of the jobs, which meant that even people with 20+ years of experience in their field were not qualified for the jobs unless they had the degree. Over time, it became more and more restrictive, with less opportunity to substitute experience for education. We had to lay people off that had been doing their jobs for years when contract vehicles changed because of degree requirements that the Government mandated. 

For the record, I am in the camp of some level of forgiveness (I have my doctorate and my wife has a masters in nursing); she will be able to apply for public service forgiveness in a couple of years, but I won't have that option. If I didn't have the VA, there would be no way we'd ever have been able to purchase a home. 

I recognize that the entire higher education system is broken, and that similar levels of debt will happen again without fundamental changes. But in this instance, I am supportive of patching the wound and trying to find the solve the cause of the injury later on.


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> Sadly, the cure for this is the states is having companies sponsor what is essentially a trade school to teach post high school students precisely the skills they need to work at that company.



Hell, my high school was like that back in the 90s. One of the largest employers in my county (Quad Gaphics; they print Time, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, etc) built out our school's photography and graphic design program, and offered internships that counted towards high school credit.

The head honcho was also an aviation fan, and also gifted our school a flight simulator, and one of ou Viet Nam war-trained pilot/Biology teachers taught an "aviation" class, where our final exam was to fly a single-engine plane for 5 minutes.  I was even lucky enough to be first, so I could take off from the runway.


----------



## fantom

Apologies for skimming some of this.

Back when I was in college, the cost of tuition and fees over time was a big topic of discussion. I'm not surprised it has gotten more out of hand. My understanding is that before Reagan in the 1970s, about 70% of tuition went to professors and facilities. The administrative staff was small in comparison. Somehow, we are now spending like 50%+ just on administrative staff. The problem is that college turned into a business and generated local jobs. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, so tuitions go up to deal with it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/caroli...ngs-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/

As for my rant below, the TL;DR: 1) the public education system needs to improve so people actually belong in college and 2) colleges need to have no profit or financial incentives so that unqualified people are rejected earlier and more often. Trade schools are better paths for a large number of people.



_MonSTeR_ said:


> I think too many people go to University for degrees that they don’t need, the U.K. calls them Mickey Mouse degrees, not sure if you have that term in the USA. They include things like degrees in surfing or gym management or historically here, the easiest degree was ‘media studies’. I know a girl who wrote her thesis on the 1989 Batman movie...



Yes this is sexist, but we called those students "going to college for her MRS" instead of MS.



High Plains Drifter said:


> The fact that students have to pay this much to go to school is insane. The banks that prey upon them and the parents that encourage them to go to college instead of learning a trade are part of the problem imo. I don’t think student loan forgiveness is the answer and I don't feel that the rest of American society should be burdened with that debt. Screw Sallie Mae after the billions of dollars they’ve made by selling the promise of a better life through education to people that weren’t equipped to take on the burden of often times life-long student debt.



100% agree that trade school should be valued higher than college in USA. The baby boomers really forced it down our throats that college was required to be successful and happy.



Demiurge said:


> Maybe it's coming from some manner of "privilege", but my student loans weren't much due to scholarships so the idea really doesn't bug me at all. It was a nuisance more than anything, except for when it nearly fucked by debt-to-income when I tried buying a home right out of school. Maybe if my loans were a millstone around the neck like for some, I'd feel differently. It's investment that would pay-off eventually. Young people entering the work force with more education and more purchasing power is good for society, even from a capitalist standpoint.
> 
> I agree with only making some level of it free, though. If you want to go to Fancy Pants University, pay up.



I completely agree with this... by time someone is 17 years old, it is pretty clear if they are a good student and learn / test well. Those student (myself included) got very generous scholarships. But considering I got a good job in the industry, I'd argued the investment from the taxpayers was worth it. Ya, it is hard to say that without sounding arrogant, so judge all you want. I agree it is privilege, but it is merit based privilege, which I am ok with...

Being a prior instructor and TA, I can definitely say that colleges are a business and are not incentivized to fail students that don't belong. The goal is to get their money and funnel worse performers into more useless programs where it takes the 7-8 years to graduate. Usually those students have loud parents that will not let them drop out. You want awkward, try explaining to a 22 year old's mom that you can't share grades with her because the student is an adult and that grades aren't just given to people who sign up for classes each semester. While that was extreme, I'd definitely say only about 20% of students, at best, belonged in the degree programs they were in.

This is sad, because the industry is desperate for qualified US applicants, but the public K-12 system is failing before students even sign up for their first college semester.

I'm all for free-ride, substantial waivers, or even paid coops. But I think by time people are college aged, there is enough information that we should be telling people not to go to college if they can't afford it or find a scholarship or assistance. I'm also all for equal opportunity scholarships for underprivileged people. It is more about merit and who deserves aid than anything else. Truth is, every person who grew up in USA had at least 3-4 years to prove they deserved financial aid in some form. It needs to be merit based.

And remember international kids are coming to US colleges and paying 3-10x more in tuition and paying their bills just fine. This problem seems uniquely Americans underperforming or making bad financial decisions, and capitalism shoving it right up their wide open buttholes before they realize it's coming. Parents should be protecting their kids from these vultures instead of providing the lube.

Also, I'm 100% on board firing like 90% of adminstration jobs and giving them to students or finances to tuition.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> kind of a hot topic right now. where you do you land?
> 
> personally i am against it. i think shit ideas like this and defund the police (which i know is not exactly what they mean) are some of the reasons that the dems didn't do as well as they could have in the last election.
> 
> i know that college is fucked. tuition goes up every year, its way too expensive. BUT you know what you are agreeing to when you sign the papers. you can't agree to repay the money, get the money, and then expect the balance to be wiped clean. doesn't work that way when you get a mortgage or car loan. doesn't seem fair to the people who paid their loans back. doesn't seem fair to the tax payers who backed the loans.
> 
> I can see the other side of the argument that it would allow those people to put that money back into the economy but that just doesn't hold enough water for me.
> 
> 
> thoughts? change my mind?



I skipped the thread so far to answer your question directly. 

College ads value to many Americans lives. College also costs ENTIRELY too much given the median starting salaries of ~$40k which are identical to “good starting salaries” of the late 90’s. 

College “debt” is only of value to banks. Having US citizens paying $500/mo or more even if they have a “good” $40k job doesn’t mean anything. Because they will be paying that forever and never make progress financially in life. 

From a long term capitalism viewpoint the debt itself adds no value to the world, the economic activity lost by that person not eating out, buying clothes, buying a car/home, saving to have kids who then need money spent is astronomical. 

The debt is too high for the salaries rendered, and as we have all now seen. The cost of living shoots up annually even though employers have held wages stagnant for 15+ years. 

My last promotion in 2017 my starting salary was identical to my teammates when he was promoted in 2004. But my cost of living was 2017 prices versus his 2004 prices for everything from housing to eating out to saving for kids’ schooling. 

Its a false equivalency to think that someone getting out of debt is “unfair” because that person now has more money to spend with more businesses which creates growth. 

Best time to plant a tree (make college free) was 40 years ago, second best time is today. 

I have a tendency to type a lot so ima stop here and see what you think.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> This is something that needs to be addressed. We've now got generations of people who were told to go to school to get jobs, only to find there were no jobs to be had. Now, some of this was simply wishful thinking on the part of people who enrolled in those programs. My cousin has a bachelor's degree in history, and now works stocking shelves at a grocery store. My uncle has two masters degrees in biblical studies. He's now a realtor. Really, there are a fair few programs where the only even half-likely career path is to go into teaching the very subject you just finished going to school for.
> 
> But it's not restricted to those programs that are traditionally viewed as being a dead end. Even me, I got a diploma in electronics engineering tech. The reason I enrolled was because, according to government and industry forecasts at the time, it was an industry that was set to really expand in the next few years. In fact, in order to get financing, I had to prove that I'd be able to get a job upon graduation. Unfortunately, the job market for EE techs in Canada completely evaporated while I was in my last year. It was only about a month ago that I started a job in my vocation.



FWIW, I had kind of the opposite experience, that's played out in both good and bad ways.

High School was hell for me, and all signs drove me away from college. I started a business with my father my senior year (doing biz to biz media production and marketing) and switched to that full time pretty much the day I graduated. 

I've had some very gratifying, fulfilling and resume building experiences in the 16+ years since, but 

1.) I've made very little money over that time 
2.) I have nothing resembling a retirement plan 
3.) There's an ever present threat I need to seek traditional employment some day (especially the post-COVID hellscape that is the upstate NY economy), and a degree is paragraph one, first sentence velvet rope policy most places.

Given, working as an entrepreneur has opened a lot of doors as far as networking and getting me into places that would be almost impossible working from the inside out (most projects I get to work with owner or CEO or prez from day one), so those would potentially be leads or references to prospect from but nonetheless, having a degree from a good school works as it's own "door opener". The way a lot of small biz has been decimated and the transition to smaller staff and more remote work/interviews, one has to consider how much the market shifts to what an employer finds on a job recruitment site and how far they make it past the first three or four lines.

In the end, I think both come with their own pluses and minuses with regard to where they land you in life. But if there's a chance you're gonna end up in corporate America for what you're good at, what you love or what you need to do get by, until the paradigm changes, traditional schooling and the debt (as of now) that comes with it is your biggest asset, regardless of your skills.


----------



## USMarine75

Why does the federal government need to make money off of my education? My wife has been paying for 10 years on her 30 year student loan and all she has paid is interest.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Why does the federal government need to make money off of my education? My wife has been paying for 10 years on her 30 year student loan and all she has paid is interest.



A lot of talk about loan forgiveness, but could we at least get loan interest forgiveness? When I took out mine it was at 8.6%! What am I supposed to do? Forgo grad school for a few years until there's more favorable rates? The US puts people in that shitty situation. The UK does not.


----------



## Anquished

Going off on a tangent slightly but one option that isn't widely advertised is scholarship schemes/companies paying to send you to University.

Currently I'm in my final year of an Electronic Engineering Degree which is day release along side my job. I already have the job, which I won't need to worry about searching for post graduation and my company pays for ALL my fees. The only con in my opinion is that the part time course is a year longer, which actually makes the final year much more manageable anyway. I know some companies have golden handcuffs which lock you in for a few years but IMO that's justified for an essentially free degree. 

Granted I had to do an Apprenticeship to get the job in the first place (although A-Levels would also have sufficed) but in my mind this seems like a fantastic option for people worried about fee's AND landing a job which is actually relevant to their degree after. The difficulty is this isn't widely advertised by companies, which seems insane as its something that they could easily push at Careers Fairs or recruitment drives on their websites and at schools/colleges.


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> I've had some very gratifying, fulfilling and resume building experiences in the 16+ years since, but
> 
> 1.) I've made very little money over that time
> 2.) I have nothing resembling a retirement plan
> 3.) There's an ever present threat I need to seek traditional employment some day (especially the post-COVID hellscape that is the upstate NY economy), and a degree is paragraph one, first sentence velvet rope policy most places.



16 years of work experience outweighs whatever your education background unless the education background is required (such as a medical doctor or professor).



USMarine75 said:


> Why does the federal government need to make money off of my education? My wife has been paying for 10 years on her 30 year student loan and all she has paid is interest.



Because your wife agreed to that interest rate and the terms of the loan? Can I just ask for mortgage forgiveness? The way you deal with outstanding debt is usually via bankruptcy, not blanket cancelling every loan.

The bigger issue is why was your wife offered a loan she couldn't pay down in the first place? This is the subprime mortgage situation from late 2009 all over again.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> 16 years of work experience outweighs whatever your education background unless the education background is required (such as a medical doctor or professor).



In my entire work career I've never seen this be the case, from small shops to working at the 2nd or 3rd biggest organization in my field, and everything in between, since I was 14 which was...too long ago. 

I work in the trades and trade adjacent work and folks with decades of experience in the craft are routinely turned down because they don't have a degree. 

The real kicker is that these employers aren't even looking for a relevant degree, just a degree. 

So the Steamfitter with 30 years in the trade is turned down for a maintenance planner (the person who determines what work and supplies are needed for preventative maintenance on a given piece of machinery) role because he doesn't have a two or four year degree. I've seen this dozens of times. 

Really, these companies just don't want "us" in leadership roles so they put up these barriers.


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah. You guys are just a bunch of whiners. If anything, I think we need more student debt and higher interest rates to keep people that have no business going to school from doing it without some form of severe punishment. 

Besides, if you really want a fancy degree, just enlist in the army. You'll get good life experience for the resume. Not only will you get three years of school for free, they'll pay you to do it. All you have to do is survive four years in the army. 

Otherwise, you're just a bunch of unpatriotic liberal commie america haters that shouldn't be allowed to go to college anyway.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

MaxOfMetal said:


> The real kicker is that these employers aren't even looking for a relevant degree, just a degree.



Spacing left to emphasise what is such an important point. 

25 years on the job in the real world or a degree in ‘comparative donut studies’ from the university of party central? Donut studies, clearly...


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> 16 years of work experience outweighs whatever your education background unless the education background is required (such as a medical doctor or professor).
> 
> 
> 
> Because your wife agreed to that interest rate and the terms of the loan? Can I just ask for mortgage forgiveness? The way you deal with outstanding debt is usually via bankruptcy, not blanket cancelling every loan.
> 
> The bigger issue is why was your wife offered a loan she couldn't pay down in the first place? This is the subprime mortgage situation from late 2009 all over again.



She had no choice. As previously mentioned, the fed rate is the rate at that time, regardless of credit. The only option is wait to go to school until a year with a more favorable rate lol?


----------



## thraxil

I was a relatively poor kid who went to school and got two degrees (Physics and Computer Engineering), one of them from an Ivy. Graduated during the first dot com crash with student loan debt that was large at the time, but is relatively small compared to what I see students graduating with now. I did the pretty typical 20-something thing and mostly ignored it making minimum payments for a while but eventually started working extra hard, sacrificing and saving, and paid it all off. I am 100% in support of abolishing and forgiving student loan debt.

Personally, I remember the psychological effect of having that huge debt number hanging over my head. It was too large for me to think about without massive anxiety and as a result, I basically avoided thinking about finances for the remainder of my 20s. I definitely couldn't get onto the property ladder and I didn't learn about or start any kind of retirement planning or investment because even that would've required me to confront that debt. Of course, now I'm having to play catch up on those. I was pretty lucky on employment but I had friends in a similar financial situation who ended up having to take crappy jobs that they hated so they could pay down debt. They didn't have the freedom to try starting their own businesses or getting a Masters' degree or doing any of the things that might've set them up for an overall better future. The rich kids I wen to school who didn't graduate with debt didn't have any of those problems though. They went on to found startups and become venture capitalists. The whole student loan situation just reinforces those existing imbalances and helps rich people stay rich and keeps poor people poor.

When I moved to the Netherlands and started talking to Dutch friends, I learned that their school was free. They also could get student loans up to a certain amount per year but, as long as they graduated within a certain time frame, those loans were automatically forgiven. So many of them would take the max amount, stick it in a bank account, and when they graduated college, they had no debt and enough money for a downpayment on their first house/apartment. Every Dutch friend I have that's close to my age owns property, has plenty saved for retirement, and has spent their adult lives free to think and plan long term. They are healthier, happier, and able to contribute more back to their economy than my American friends who started from a similar place.


----------



## possumkiller

thraxil said:


> Every Dutch friend I have that's close to my age owns property, has plenty saved for retirement, and has spent their adult lives free to think and plan long term. They are healthier, happier, and able to contribute more back to their economy than my American friends who started from a similar place.


Yeah but they have like zero military. We could take their country in a couple of days max. And I don't see any Dutch space rockets and satellites. And I bet they have hardly any billionaires.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> Yeah but they have like zero military. We could take their country in a couple of days max. And I don't see any Dutch space rockets and satellites. And I bet they have hardly any billionaires.



F them and their #6 ranked happiness. 

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/cities-and-happiness-a-global-ranking-and-analysis/


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> F them and their #6 ranked happiness.
> 
> https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/cities-and-happiness-a-global-ranking-and-analysis/


That's all commie propaganda anyway. How could they possibly be happy without the chance to become multibillionaires?


----------



## TedEH

Xaios said:


> This is something that needs to be addressed. We've now got generations of people who were told to go to school to get jobs, only to find there were no jobs to be had.


I'd add to that the idea that you have to do it _right now_. I remember being told that in order to have achieve any semblance of "success", I _had_ to go to more school and I _had_ to do it _right now_ because _nobody ever goes back to school_. Except that's not true at all.

I ended up waiting to go back to school until it was more viable, and I think it's one of the smartest things I've ever done. I lived in my parents basement, paying only a token amount for rent, and banked everything I made - so that in a few years time, I could get through school without taking any loans at all. I get that it's not an option for everyone, and the Canadian situation doesn't sound like it's nearly as bad as the way it works in the US, but I'm sure a similar pattern could work for some people if they allowed themselves to acknowledge that it's an option.



Mathemagician said:


> College ads value to many Americans lives.


Does it really? That's such a vague non-statement. If the point of going to college is to get a job to secure yourself financially, but the attempts to do so actually _cripple_ you financially instead, then I'd argue it's subtracting value. Keeping in mind as well that lots of degrees are useless. 



Randy said:


> 2.) I have nothing resembling a retirement plan


I thought that was basically everyone now. 



USMarine75 said:


> The only option is wait to go to school


^ That's kind of what I mean. Every time the idea of going to school _later_ instead of diving in as soon as possible comes up, it's treated like a bad idea. Why? What's wrong with waiting until it's more viable? Until you have more savings to go in with? Until interest rates for loans make more sense? Until an actually viable job market and pathway to that market open up?

I mean, what does not waiting give you? If you rush into education it costs you an arm and leg, you might get a useless degree, there might not be jobs, etc. I'm not saying put it off until the "perfect" time, because there might not be a perfect time - but "RIGHT NOW GO GO GO" is not the right time either.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I'd add to that the idea that you have to do it _right now_. I remember being told that in order to have achieve any semblance of "success", I _had_ to go to more school and I _had_ to do it _right now_ because _nobody ever goes back to school_. Except that's not true at all.
> 
> I ended up waiting to go back to school until it was more viable, and I think it's one of the smartest things I've ever done. I lived in my parents basement, paying only a token amount for rent, and banked everything I made - so that in a few years time, I could get through school without taking any loans at all. I get that it's not an option for everyone, and the Canadian situation doesn't sound like it's nearly as bad as the way it works in the US, but I'm sure a similar pattern could work for some people if they allowed themselves to acknowledge that it's an option.
> 
> 
> Does it really? That's such a vague non-statement. If the point of going to college is to get a job to secure yourself financially, but the attempts to do so actually _cripple_ you financially instead, then I'd argue it's subtracting value. Keeping in mind as well that lots of degrees are useless.
> 
> 
> I thought that was basically everyone now.
> 
> 
> ^ That's kind of what I mean. Every time the idea of going to school _later_ instead of diving in as soon as possible comes up, it's treated like a bad idea. Why? What's wrong with waiting until it's more viable? Until you have more savings to go in with? Until interest rates for loans make more sense? Until an actually viable job market and pathway to that market open up?
> 
> I mean, what does not waiting give you? If you rush into education it costs you an arm and leg, you might get a useless degree, there might not be jobs, etc. I'm not saying put it off until the "perfect" time, because there might not be a perfect time - but "RIGHT NOW GO GO GO" is not the right time either.



The problem is, in this US more and more minimally skilled or "entry level" jobs are requiring a degree. So "waiting" pretty much means minimum wage, which is much of the country is a "starvation wage", so you won't even be able to live off of it without assistance, which is hard to get depending on where you live. 

Our system is based around shoveling kids from high school directly into college and saddling them with monster loans. 

You also have to remember, healthcare is significantly tied to job here. So unless your parents are established enough to provide it for you, you're on your own until you find work, and even then, the plans are awful unless you get a decent paying job, which almost always (nearly 70% of the time) requires at least some college. 

Great paying, semi-skilled factory work, that just requires a GED has all but vanished.


----------



## Mathemagician

One of the problems with trying to explain the economic benefits of getting rid of student loans in the US is that Americans have a deep-seated psychological preference for punishment of others as a motivator. 

The responses from naysayers are always the same and we’ve seen them already in this thread: 
“You knew what you were signing up for” 

“you should have picked a better degree”

“Why should you get a free clean slate for yOuR bAd dEcIsIoN?!”

It’s focused on punishing someone for taking the only option they were told they had at the age of 18. The majority of which were from moderate to low income families, many of whom had never had anyone go to college. And up until the 90’s a degree actually really DID act like a golden ticket career wise. So like their dad/mom who graduated in the late 70’s or early 80’s they went straight to school and took out loans to help with the cost. Only their parents could work a summer and pay a full years tuition “back in their days of bootstrapping”. 

Americans are so SO in love with “your choice your problem” that on principle they will choose to chop of their nose to spite their face. 

A literal realtor who hustled to pay off their loans will vote against loan forgiveness “because if I had to suffer sO dO yOu!”

Meanwhile there would be 100+ people in their immediate community looking for homes instantly without their student loans, and many many more over the years. 

They’re giving up future income for themself to spite some else “getting a freebie”. 

It’s like- Just take the commission checks as your cut of the loan forgiveness ffs. Of the extra business to your restaurant, etc.


----------



## narad

Mathemagician said:


> One of the problems with trying to explain the economic benefits of getting rid of student loans in the US is that Americans have a deep-seated psychological preference for punishment of others as a motivator.
> 
> The responses from naysayers are always the same and we’ve seen them already in this thread:
> “You knew what you were signing up for”
> 
> “you should have picked a better degree”
> 
> “Why should you get a free clean slate for yOuR bAd dEcIsIoN?!”
> 
> It’s focused on punishing someone for taking the only option they were told they had at the age of 18. The majority of which were from moderate to low income families, many of whom had never had anyone go to college. And up until the 90’s a degree actually really DID act like a golden ticket career wise. So like their dad/mom who graduated in the late 70’s or early 80’s they went straight to school and took out loans to help with the cost. Only their parents could work a summer and pay a full years tuition “back in their days of bootstrapping”.
> 
> Americans are so SO in love with “your choice your problem” that on principle they will choose to chop of their nose to spite their face.
> 
> A literal realtor who hustled to pay off their loans will vote against loan forgiveness “because if I had to suffer sO dO yOu!”
> 
> Meanwhile there would be 100+ people in their immediate community looking for homes instantly without their student loans, and many many more over the years.
> 
> They’re giving up future income for themself to spite some else “getting a freebie”.
> 
> It’s like- Just take the commission checks as your cut of the loan forgiveness ffs. Of the extra business to your restaurant, etc.



I was surprised to hear there's a big anti-immigration stance in the Indian American immigrant community, of people who were basically magically fortunate enough to come in legally in the 70s/80s, and as soon as they're here it's like, "Fuck all y'all. You should have to win the proverbial lottery like us." Same sort of logic.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> The problem is, in this US more and more minimally skilled or "entry level" jobs are requiring a degree. So "waiting" pretty much means minimum wage


Isn't that still the case, even _with_ some of those degrees? Sounds like a rock and a hard place situation. But if I was going to make minimum wage anyway, I'd rather not _also_ have a huge debt for a useless education. I'm half kidding. I get what you mean though.


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> 16 years of work experience outweighs whatever your education background unless the education background is required (such as a medical doctor or professor).


This is completely and utterly false now. A big part of the problem is even in smaller companies you have HR filtering things. 

I'm gonna go off on a tangent and tell a story here. Feel free to skip it if you don't want a glimpse of how shit hiring processes have become due to HR bungling humanity.

I was recently involved in an attempted hire for a programmer. We interviewed two candidates. One was smart as a whip, had experience in the field, got along well with us, and was super flexible even with the shitty programming interview questions we tossed at him. Plus he had no problem with picking up the more complex problems we saddled him with for the follow-up. No degree.

The other was a smart-ass kid fresh graduated with a computer science degree. He kept trying to dictate what the job would be and telling us we needed to move our main site to a framework he knew. We told him repeatedly that we had investigated frameworks during our spin-up phase but we had so much customization required it was simply easier to build from scratch. Two minutes later he's saying, "So how long would it take to get the site moved over to $framework." I was about ready to punch the kid. And at that point he declares he won't take the job unless we change the title from programmer to software engineer.

Pure arrogance and absolute inability to code for shit.

I liked candidate one. My boss liked candidate one. The follow ups were more of the same and I was ready to hit the ground running with the dude that actually had a head on his shoulders. HR declared him useless and wanted the kid with the degree.

Then COVID struck and we stopped the hiring process. Which is a good thing because I would have strangled that motherfucker with his own entrails inside of a week.

HR departments are literally ticking boxes and not paying any attention at all to experience, fit, or personality types. The HR person that struck candidate one was in the room for all interviews. She saw the whole thing and still thought candidate two was the better choice. THIS is the world we're in now. I'd have never been hired had HR been involved in the process because I don't have a degree.

Thankfully, they haven't managed to back-filter enough bullshit to boot me yet, though every year they come up with some new requirement for my position. It was especially hilarious when they asked me for my resume after I'd been working here for twelve years.

Now, back to college tuition bitching.


----------



## sleewell

Mathemagician said:


> One of the problems with trying to explain the economic benefits of getting rid of student loans in the US is that Americans have a deep-seated psychological preference for punishment of others as a motivator.
> 
> The responses from naysayers are always the same and we’ve seen them already in this thread:
> “You knew what you were signing up for”
> 
> “you should have picked a better degree”
> 
> “Why should you get a free clean slate for yOuR bAd dEcIsIoN?!”
> 
> It’s focused on punishing someone for taking the only option they were told they had at the age of 18. The majority of which were from moderate to low income families, many of whom had never had anyone go to college. And up until the 90’s a degree actually really DID act like a golden ticket career wise. So like their dad/mom who graduated in the late 70’s or early 80’s they went straight to school and took out loans to help with the cost. Only their parents could work a summer and pay a full years tuition “back in their days of bootstrapping”.
> 
> Americans are so SO in love with “your choice your problem” that on principle they will choose to chop of their nose to spite their face.
> 
> A literal realtor who hustled to pay off their loans will vote against loan forgiveness “because if I had to suffer sO dO yOu!”
> 
> Meanwhile there would be 100+ people in their immediate community looking for homes instantly without their student loans, and many many more over the years.
> 
> They’re giving up future income for themself to spite some else “getting a freebie”.
> 
> It’s like- Just take the commission checks as your cut of the loan forgiveness ffs. Of the extra business to your restaurant, etc.




i really am trying to wrap my head around this but to me it sounds like it would require throwing personal responsibility out the window in order to do so. 

this idea that something is free is just not true, someone somewhere has to pay for it. i think we enter pretty dangerous waters if there are no repercussions for just going to college and fucking around just bc its free.

as a mortgage lender we could write a lot more loans if we just wiped everyone's prior debts clean but are those really loans we would want to originate? seems very pie in sky and short sighted to me. 

as i have said i am much more open to putting a lower cap on the interest and i think much more education/awareness should be devoted in high school to ways to attend college cheaper so its not really a surprise to people after they are already screwed.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Isn't that still the case, even _with_ some of those degrees? Sounds like a rock and a hard place situation. But if I was going to make minimum wage anyway, I'd rather not _also_ have a huge debt for a useless education. I'm half kidding. I get what you mean though.



It's a shitty situation all around, but with college also (potentially) comes room and board, and if given the options of working starvation wages, accumulating debt in the present vs. taking out a loan that can (and will be) deferred for years for the prospect of making it out alive, its the best of a bad situation and one often taken if available. 

Obviously degree selection is, at best, an educated guess, and the individual with have to decide if they have the requisite skills to follow through, but like I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of students who stick it out and graduate choose majors that aren't seen as "throw away", over 90% actually.



sleewell said:


> i really am trying to wrap my head around this but to me it sounds like it would require throwing personal responsibility out the window in order to do so.
> 
> this idea that something is free is just not true, someone somewhere has to pay for it. i think we enter pretty dangerous waters if there are no repercussions for just going to college and fucking around just bc its free.
> 
> as a mortgage lender we could write a lot more loans if we just wiped everyone's prior debts clean but are those really loans we would want to originate? seems very pie in sky and short sighted to me.
> 
> as i have said i am much more open to putting a lower cap on the interest and i think much more education/awareness should be devoted in high school to ways to attend college cheaper so its not really a surprise to people after they are already screwed.



Take the ~30 minutes and read up on how the rest of the world does it. 

Hint: it's pretty much how you're describing. 

The issue with forgiveness is separate. Right now student loan debt is an almost $2 trillion boat anchor on our economy. It's costing us more to keep it than to discharge it.


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> i really am trying to wrap my head around this but to me it sounds like it would require throwing personal responsibility out the window in order to do so.
> 
> this idea that something is free is just not true, someone somewhere has to pay for it. i think we enter pretty dangerous waters if there are no repercussions for just going to college and fucking around just bc its free.


I don't get this part. Just because it is free does not mean that they can't flunk out or fuck around and get expelled. College should be free*. After you have done a mandatory two years military service. Spending time in the military will teach kids a bit of self discipline, how to value their personal freedom in the civilian world, and just how shit life can be when you are an uneducated nobody.

*As long as you maintain a C or better just like the GI Bill. Get a D in History one semester and you get a bill for that class. Motherfuckers ain't payin for you to dick around doing the bare ass minimum.


----------



## sleewell

possumkiller said:


> I don't get this part. Just because it is free does not mean that they can't flunk out or fuck around and get expelled. College should be free*. After you have done a mandatory two years military service. Spending time in the military will teach kids a bit of self discipline, how to value their personal freedom in the civilian world, and just how shit life can be when you are an uneducated nobody.
> 
> *As long as you maintain a C or better just like the GI Bill. Get a D in History one semester and you get a bill for that class. Motherfuckers ain't payin for you to dick around doing the bare ass minimum.




yep, i totally agree with the GI bill and greatly appreciate the people who serve this country. to clarify what i meant about fucking around is not just limited to getting poor grades. it could also mean getting a $200k out of state private school degree in underwater basket weaving.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> i really am trying to wrap my head around this but to me it sounds like it would require throwing personal responsibility out the window in order to do so.
> 
> this idea that something is free is just not true, someone somewhere has to pay for it. i think we enter pretty dangerous waters if there are no repercussions for just going to college and fucking around just bc its free.
> 
> as a mortgage lender we could write a lot more loans if we just wiped everyone's prior debts clean but are those really loans we would want to originate? seems very pie in sky and short sighted to me.
> 
> as i have said i am much more open to putting a lower cap on the interest and i think much more education/awareness should be devoted in high school to ways to attend college cheaper so its not really a surprise to people after they are already screwed.



Your premise is predicated on the idea that “taking out debt for an education is inherently fair”.

40+ years ago when Americans enjoyed BOTH:
1) Low cost of education relative to what could be earned working part time/minimum wage
2) Essentially guaranteed Higher starting salaries at American companies that wanted to grow/provided advancement opportunities.

The cost of education has far inflated the reward for most jobs that “require” a degree, which nowadays is almost all of them. I had a coworker miss out on a promotion for not having a degree even with 22 yrs experience.

And I don’t know who convinced a solid half of the country that college is some sort of fun party time, for people with wealthy families perhaps. A LOT of hate for loan forgiveness comes from people imagining others “partying” for 4 years. Actual college isn’t like on the tv. Just like actual high school isn’t interesting like on tv.

But I worked 30 hrs a week and took 4/4/3 classes (fall/spring/summer) and still had both scholarships and some help from my parents just to barely scrape by at a “cheap” state school. The cost of tuition went from $4k a semester to $6k while I was studying. It’s higher now. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

What benefit did my parents have by tapping into their retirement funds to help me? What if I got very very sick in a year or two and could not make much use of my degree in terms of earnings power? Education would have emptied my parents and my savings only to have healthcare wipe me out entirely.

Only in the US can trying to build a better life only work if every single domino lines up in your favor. - One thing you can’t control and 20 years of hard work just evaporates.

Indentured servitude eventually evolved into slavery because it was more convenient for those already in control. And “Student loans to pay for school” has over 20+ years evolved into “lifelong debt noose around your neck to prevent you from getting ahead”.

Can’t buy a home because you can’t save, so landlords love it, and a landlord isn’t going to refrain from hiking their rent annually because they aren’t your friend - so good luck having your raises mean anything when rent goes up more than your comp.

As school costs $60k for a state school so you’re going to have to both work, get loans, and have roommates and maybe you’ll only have $20-40k of debt. Also books are anywhere from $50-350 (my chemistry textbook) EACH so good luck paying for housing and food on top of it all alone without familial help (in US books/housing is not included in tuition).


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> yep, i totally agree with the GI bill and greatly appreciate the people who serve this country. to clarify what i meant about fucking around is not just limited to getting poor grades. it could also mean getting a $200k out of state private school degree in underwater basket weaving.


Baskets are always going to need weaving. Till Lindemann was a basket weaver.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> yep, i totally agree with the GI bill and greatly appreciate the people who serve this country. to clarify what i meant about fucking around is not just limited to getting poor grades. it could also mean getting a $200k out of state private school degree in underwater basket weaving.



I hear what you're saying, but who are any of us to determine what value that degree has in society? Look at the retraining push the UK government is doing with their artist community. Does art not have as much value in society as cyber security?


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> In my entire work career I've never seen this be the case, from small shops to working at the 2nd or 3rd biggest organization in my field, and everything in between, since I was 14 which was...too long ago.
> 
> I work in the trades and trade adjacent work and folks with decades of experience in the craft are routinely turned down because they don't have a degree.
> 
> The real kicker is that these employers aren't even looking for a relevant degree, just a degree.
> 
> So the Steamfitter with 30 years in the trade is turned down for a maintenance planner (the person who determines what work and supplies are needed for preventative maintenance on a given piece of machinery) role because he doesn't have a two or four year degree. I've seen this dozens of times.
> 
> Really, these companies just don't want "us" in leadership roles so they put up these barriers.



I've seen this a number of times, also. Mostly in a positive sense but two people close to me have bounced from job-to-job with little to no parity or consistency but the degree at the top of the resume gets them the job every time. Not sure I've ever seen either of them turned down for a job.

My girlfriend used to work at a dentist's office and they would "promote" desk staff to office management when they had an opening, and they still maintained this base level ~$25,000/yr. salary, maybe the occasional bonus but otherwise it was the same pay with 10x the work. By comparison, they had an office manager position they advertised for, and they got a person who took the job with no experience in the field and no experience in management but an associate's degree, and they started them at $80,000/yr. 

It's kind of a long complicated issue, but in my experience, a lot of these HR people are just as guilty of getting the job based on their education and not their abilities. So they have a boiler plate "safe" list of qualifiers (and disqualifiers) they go off of, with a degree probably at the top of their list. Ownership and upper management actually may be receptive to experience over a diploma, but that doesn't mean anything if you don't make it past the gate keeper. And 99.99% of people don't. That's essentially what you paid that $50,000+ and two to four years for.

This economy is deeply rooted in that high school to college pipeline, and it's looking to go even deeper the way this economy becomes more homogenized as COVID kills off an entire generation of main street businesses. In that sense, student debt or the higher education standard is something that needs to be addressed ASAP.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I've seen this a number of times, also. Mostly in a positive sense but two people close to me have bounced from job-to-job with little to no parity or consistency but the degree at the top of the resume gets them the job every time. Not sure I've ever seen either of them turned down for a job.
> 
> My girlfriend used to work at a dentist's office and they would "promote" desk staff to office management when they had an opening, and they still maintained this base level ~$25,000/yr. salary, maybe the occasional bonus but otherwise it was the same pay with 10x the work. By comparison, they had an office manager position they advertised for, and they got a person who took the job with no experience in the field and no experience in management but an associate's degree, and they started them at $80,000/yr.
> 
> It's kind of a long complicated issue, but in my experience, a lot of these HR people are just as guilty of getting the job based on their education and not their abilities. So they have a boiler plate "safe" list of qualifiers (and disqualifiers) they go off of, with a degree probably at the top of their list. Ownership and upper management actually may be receptive to experience over a diploma, but that doesn't mean anything if you don't make it past the gate keeper. And 99.99% of people don't. That's essentially what you paid that $50,000+ and two to four years for.
> 
> This economy is deeply rooted in that high school to college pipeline, and it's looking to go even deeper the way this economy becomes more homogenized as COVID kills off an entire generation of main street businesses. In that sense, student debt or the higher education standard is something that needs to be addressed ASAP.



I genuinely believe that degrees are sought after (when not in the field) because employers want WASPs and/or folks who are in debt and will thus take more shit from management. 

That's been my experience dealing with HR types in general. 

Speaking of HR, I know several people who have been in and out of various HR positions, all with relevant schooling, and they absolutely hate it. It's soul crushing and the compensation is lousy. They've said point blank that it's just so miserable that it's hard to not reflect that back into the work.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> I can see the other side of the argument that it would allow those people to put that money back into the economy but that just doesn't hold enough water for me.


I mean, the new household formation rate has fallen precipitously amongst the millennial and whatever we're calling post-millennial these days generations, household formation and new home purchasing is a fairly strong driver of economic growth, and additionally is a source of "savings" and wealth generation traditionally for Americans. From a strict economic standpoint, the fact Americans are getting married and buying houses at a rate well below what they used to because they already have too much debt is a very, very big problem in the long run. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not taking my time to talk at the table mug guy for something pretty much the rest of the world has figured out ages ago.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're conflating two separate but related subjects. 

Most of the rest of the world has just made higher education free or very, very cheap. 
We've made it expensive, but provided access to loans - often at fairly high interest rates - so students who might not otherwise have access to the necessary credit can borrow to go to college and grad school.

The former isn't debt forgiveness. It's free education. Debt forgiveness is when we take borrowers who have agreements with lenders to borrow to fund education, and tell those lenders they're not getting paid back anymore. Doing "what the rest of the world has already figured out" would be making college free or very nearly so. Debt forgiveness is a much harder nut to crack. The federal government DOES offer student loans, and could in theory write those off fairly easily. Writing off privately issued student loans, though, is a much dicier question. 

i'm - in principal - in favor of doing it, because I think it's the right thing to do, and because I do think it would be additive to US GDP growth. But, the devil is very much in the details, as how we do it without bankrupting existing private lenders.


----------



## c7spheres

I haven't read the previous comments yet but college is imo way overpriced, people know this before they sign up for it, and loan forgiveness should be handled under bankruptcy laws like other debts. 
- Why should a responsible person who knows they can't afford college and doesn't go because of it essentially be shafted for it? If all these people knew they could go to college and get a free ride then everyones career "choices" would look a lot different. I would have went to school for a degree in... had I known I could get all these debts forgiven, but instead I work at shit-shack while the irresponsible person gets a higher paying job, becomes my boss and has no debt. 
- This whole idea of student loan forgiveness and the entire higher education system is basically a sham. If any loans are forgiven then those people should be forced to work for minimum wage for the period of time it took them to get their degrees and also everyone else in the country should be able to go to college for anything they want for free for any degree they want. 
- End of stupid rant.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> It's kind of a long complicated issue, but in my experience, a lot of these HR people are just as guilty of getting the job based on their education and not their abilities. So they have a boiler plate "safe" list of qualifiers (and disqualifiers) they go off of, with a degree probably at the top of their list. Ownership and upper management actually may be receptive to experience over a diploma, but that doesn't mean anything if you don't make it past the gate keeper. And 99.99% of people don't. That's essentially what you paid that $50,000+ and two to four years for.


The less conspiracy theory way to look at it, I think, is your typical HR person is going to get anywhere from dozens to hundreds of resumes for every position they post. Some are absolute junk (I'm constantly getting emails from recruiters who are pushing jobs that have titles that sound superficially like mine, but are completely related), but a lot would be in theory potential candidates. Anything a HR rep can quickly do to take 150 resumes and whittle it down to a dozen for phone interviews is going to make THEIR job easier, and on one hand requiring a college degree in the job description, and the other taking a look at the resume pile and deciding the one candidate with a BA from Harvard is getting a phone interview, is a pretty easy quick-and-dirty screen that neither their supervisors nor lawyers are really going to push back on - people without college degrees and people who didn't go to Harvard aren't legally protected groups in the same way age, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation are.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> I haven't read the previous comments yet but college is imo way overpriced, people know this before they sign up for it, and loan forgiveness should be handled under bankruptcy laws like other debts.


Fun fact - college loans are bankruptcy-remote. If you declare bankruptcy, you can write off credit card debt, mortgage debt, small business debt, home equity debt, etc etc etc... But you cannot write of college loans. The idea is you don't want students graduating with $200,000 in debt, not starting the job search for six months, and during that time declaring bankruptcy, claiming their income ($0) makes their debt burden untenable. Which, sadly, is fair. 

Meanwhile, we price college loans with a risk premium that implies a fairly significant amount of credit risk, appropriate for a young borrower wiith uncertain earnings potential who may default. That's all well and good... except the loan can't be written off in default so credit protections are quite a bit stronger than a conventional loan.

If we don't actually find a way to forgive student debt, then some sort of federal program that pools the loans to reduce idiosyncratic risk and then resells them back into the market in CLO form, with a federal guarantee (maybe overcollteralize 110%, or guarantee principal repayment of 95% as a floor or something), with an eye on reducing credit risk to lenders and passing those savings back on to the student borrowers to get rates down from the 7-8% we're seeing today, to maybe 1.5%, a modest spread over the ten year treasury rate, would seem like to me a pretty fair way to recognize the relatively strong collateral protections student loans offer.


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> Fun fact - college loans are bankruptcy-remote. If you declare bankruptcy, you can write off credit card debt, mortgage debt, small business debt, home equity debt, etc etc etc... But you cannot write of college loans. The idea is you don't want students graduating with $200,000 in debt, not starting the job search for six months, and during that time declaring bankruptcy, claiming their income ($0) makes their debt burden untenable. Which, sadly, is fair.
> 
> Meanwhile, we price college loans with a risk premium that implies a fairly significant amount of credit risk, appropriate for a young borrower wiith uncertain earnings potential who may default. That's all well and good... except the loan can't be written off in default so credit protections are quite a bit stronger than a conventional loan.
> 
> If we don't actually find a way to forgive student debt, then some sort of federal program that pools the loans to reduce idiosyncratic risk and then resells them back into the market in CLO form, with a federal guarantee (maybe overcollteralize 110%, or guarantee principal repayment of 95% as a floor or something), with an eye on reducing credit risk to lenders and passing those savings back on to the student borrowers to get rates down from the 7-8% we're seeing today, to maybe 1.5%, a modest spread over the ten year treasury rate, would seem like to me a pretty fair way to recognize the relatively strong collateral protections student loans offer.



I should have been more clear on that. I think it should be allowed to be handled in bankruptcy courts as a normal debts are.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> I should have been more clear on that. I think it should be allowed to be handled in bankruptcy courts as a normal debts are.


I mean, I know you're arguing against student loan forgiveness... but arguably that's a form of student loan forgiveness. Blowing up your credit for seven years but having a clean slate after that, upon graduation, would be kind of a no brainer for anyone with more than modest student debt and a 30 year payment plan, and you'd see a whole avalanche of personal bankruptcies if that was passed into law today, for purely strategic reasons.


----------



## budda

What happens if private lenders *do* lose all that debt owed? Whats the pros and cons on a micro and macro level?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> The less conspiracy theory way to look at it, I think, is your typical HR person is going to get anywhere from dozens to hundreds of resumes for every position they post. Some are absolute junk (I'm constantly getting emails from recruiters who are pushing jobs that have titles that sound superficially like mine, but are completely related), but a lot would be in theory potential candidates. Anything a HR rep can quickly do to take 150 resumes and whittle it down to a dozen for phone interviews is going to make THEIR job easier, and on one hand requiring a college degree in the job description, and the other taking a look at the resume pile and deciding the one candidate with a BA from Harvard is getting a phone interview, is a pretty easy quick-and-dirty screen that neither their supervisors nor lawyers are really going to push back on - people without college degrees and people who didn't go to Harvard aren't legally protected groups in the same way age, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation are.



Right, that's actually kinda what I meant. 

I speak first (or semi-second?) hand on that one, working with a couple different companies through management changes, meeting the people doing the hiring, and meeting the new hires, seeing them fail at the job and subsequently replaced again.

I fully agree with what you said, as far as describing how applications are cut down. I also think it's probably somewhat impractical to deep dive every application that comes through, especially those with unconventional experience/education. 

You know, stating the obvious but there are a lot of qualified people you miss out on if you filter your applicants using the 'wrong' criteria. Which I know is a subjective term but considering the discussions we're having about changes to the market and disparities in access to the economy (Powell said as much himself), all this should be on the table going forward.

To the overarching discussion on education and debt, the job market, etc. these are the reasons I am a Democrat and personally why I identify as a progressive. The role of the government is to manage the commons to allow easy access to services necessary for most or all Americans, with also consideration for vulnerable groups. That changes as time goes on, access to healthcare was the big one in the last decade (which we're not up to par on yet but better), and access to quality employment and living wages is the battle now IMO. Whether you address that through the means of employment, access to education or affordability, something needs a significant change to adjust where we were even before COVID. Tenfold now.


----------



## StevenC

sleewell said:


> i think we enter pretty dangerous waters if there are no repercussions for just going to college and fucking around just bc its free.


Why though? How is more education a bad thing for anyone?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You know, stating the obvious but there are a lot of qualified people you miss out on if you filter your applicants using the 'wrong' criteria. Which I know is a subjective term but considering the discussions we're having about changes to the market and disparities in access to the economy (Powell said as much himself), all this should be on the table going forward.


Yeah, I guess MaxofMetal would have been maybe the better person to direct that at, since it was more his post I had in mind - you don't have to ascribe an evil desire to HR people wanting a workforce of WASPs who are all too indebted to stand up for themseves, when a far easier explanation is it's just a really simple and legal criteria to weed out a lot of applicants, and save the HR person hundreds of hours of unnecessary work. 

Interesting 538 article on that, on the hiring of Kim Ng as a MBL GM, and that barrier breakers like her often go on to outperform their peers for the simple reason that to be the first to break down a barrier, you have to be pretty damned exceptional in the first place, and a lot of the people who follow in their footsteps are often unusually good as well because they're a previously untapped source. The corollary here I think is pretty clea.


----------



## Mathemagician

c7spheres said:


> I haven't read the previous comments yet but college is imo way overpriced, people know this before they sign up for it, and loan forgiveness should be handled under bankruptcy laws like other debts.
> - Why should a responsible person who knows they can't afford college and doesn't go because of it essentially be shafted for it? If all these people knew they could go to college and get a free ride then everyones career "choices" would look a lot different. I would have went to school for a degree in... had I known I could get all these debts forgiven, but instead I work at shit-shack while the irresponsible person gets a higher paying job, becomes my boss and has no debt.
> - This whole idea of student loan forgiveness and the entire higher education system is basically a sham. If any loans are forgiven then those people should be forced to work for minimum wage for the period of time it took them to get their degrees and also everyone else in the country should be able to go to college for anything they want for free for any degree they want.
> - End of stupid rant.



This post is the most common complaint we see, and can essentially be summarized as “Jealousy”. And I feel you, because YES that feeling of “missed opportunities” SUCKS. Your feelings are valid. That’s ok.

I don’t have loans but had to kill myself to keep it that way and had family help. I wouldn’t benefit from loan forgiveness. I still want others to.

But- “I didn’t have the lotto work out in my favor so why should anyone else get ahead in life/benefit from a policy that doesn’t directly benefit me?”

Debt forgiveness is PART of the goal, free college is the remainder.

It’s like legalizing marijuana- we cannot go back in time and give people who were incarcerated for it their lives back, but we CAN release everyone who is still serving time for it and then legalize it for everyone. Yes younger people would not have had to spend years trying to find jobs with a criminal record like older users may have, but that’s not a good reason to keep people trapped in jail.

Student debt relief should never have been elevated above bankruptcy courts begin with, which arguably kickstarted the ramp up in costs.

Banks saw “risk less debt” and school saw “anyone can borrow to come here so let’s Jack up prices and accept record #’s of people”.

The student debt issue is America’s problem whether people have debt or not. You run a flooring business after trade school you finished with no debt? The couple who bought a tiny dumpy house would gladly re-do the flooring and hire you but you know - $600/mo debt payments prevent them from even thinking about it.

Most businesses in America are small businesses. And those college-educated “libruhls” people love thinking about “buying local” and “supporting small business” but actually can’t so they shop at Wal mart.

Sell your wings and draft beer to more young Americans - get rid of student loan debt.


----------



## Sumsar

Coming from a country that has tax paid school, high school, university, healt care etc. I pay about 40% income tax as far as I remember. That then covers my own masters degree, which I actually got paid to do. The education was free and I got about 1000$ a month for the 6 years I was studying. I don't have any sort of student loan, other than that I have to pay tax for the rest of my life. I also had cancer when I was about 15 years old, which also got solved for free - was given pretty much the best cure available at the time and did not have to wait long to get it.

The way I see it, the money invested in me (education and healt) pays off over the years as I work. Business make more because there are more highly educated workers available for hire. People earn more moeny so they spend more. And people pay more taxes, so tax paid per capita gets higher so the bill for it all is carried by the majority of the population.

A few pages back there was the discussion that many educations does not lead to a job. I think part of that responsibility also lies with businesses. For instance I do IT but have a background in physics. The people in my department has stuied math, chemisty, various forms of engineering and there is also the occasional computer scienctist amoung us. Business must broaden their mind on what background is needed for the job. It is getting better here in Denmark, but I hear that in many other countries you only get hired if you have the precise needed education, which is a waste of potential.


----------



## Mathemagician

Sumsar said:


> Coming from a country that has tax paid school, high school, university, healt care etc. I pay about 40% income tax as far as I remember. That then covers my own masters degree, which I actually got paid to do. The education was free and I got about 1000$ a month for the 6 years I was studying. I don't have any sort of student loan, other than that I have to pay tax for the rest of my life. I also had cancer when I was about 15 years old, which also got solved for free - was given pretty much the best cure available at the time and did not have to wait long to get it.
> 
> The way I see it, the money invested in me (education and healt) pays off over the years as I work. Business make more because there are more highly educated workers available for hire. People earn more moeny so they spend more. And people pay more taxes, so tax paid per capita gets higher so the bill for it all is carried by the majority of the population.
> 
> A few pages back there was the discussion that many educations does not lead to a job. I think part of that responsibility also lies with businesses. For instance I do IT but have a background in physics. The people in my department has stuied math, chemisty, various forms of engineering and there is also the occasional computer scienctist amoung us. Business must broaden their mind on what background is needed for the job. It is getting better here in Denmark, but I hear that in many other countries you only get hired if you have the precise needed education, which is a waste of potential.



The short version from most Americans who make so little that they actually get Tax Rebates back from the government (think sub-$60k/yr with kids) is: Communism. 

Because they engage in mental accounting. They don’t consider the costs of medical care, and child care, and education as a “tax” on their income. If they did, they would see that the amount coming out for baseline needs is the same or more than what those in other countries pay. 

But these paycheck to paycheck people see “40%?!” And then shout “communism”. The end. 

Then they write articles about how Europeans live longer and happier lives because they cook with olive oil.


----------



## fantom

USMarine75 said:


> She had no choice. As previously mentioned, the fed rate is the rate at that time, regardless of credit. The only option is wait to go to school until a year with a more favorable rate lol?



I'm really not trying to be rude, but she did have a choice. She chose to take a loan and go to college. She could have applied for work without a degree instead. She could have went to community college. She could have worked an administration job and gotten a tuition waiver for a few classes each semester. She chose to borrow money.

If the issue here is that college should retroactively be free, that isn't fair to people that paid back their loans. Are you expecting the government to reimburse them? And why college loans and not mortgages? I would argue mortgages are more important than college loans (shelter is a basic need, education should come after shelter).

I'm all for reform, but I think saying she had no choice is going a bit far.



nightflameauto said:


> This is completely and utterly false now. A big part of the problem is even in smaller companies you have HR filtering things.
> 
> I'm gonna go off on a tangent and tell a story here. Feel free to skip it if you don't want a glimpse of how shit hiring processes have become due to HR bungling humanity.
> 
> I was recently involved in an attempted hire for a programmer. We interviewed two candidates. One was smart as a whip, had experience in the field, got along well with us, and was super flexible even with the shitty programming interview questions we tossed at him. Plus he had no problem with picking up the more complex problems we saddled him with for the follow-up. No degree.
> 
> The other was a smart-ass kid fresh graduated with a computer science degree. He kept trying to dictate what the job would be and telling us we needed to move our main site to a framework he knew. We told him repeatedly that we had investigated frameworks during our spin-up phase but we had so much customization required it was simply easier to build from scratch. Two minutes later he's saying, "So how long would it take to get the site moved over to $framework." I was about ready to punch the kid. And at that point he declares he won't take the job unless we change the title from programmer to software engineer.
> 
> Pure arrogance and absolute inability to code for shit.
> 
> I liked candidate one. My boss liked candidate one. The follow ups were more of the same and I was ready to hit the ground running with the dude that actually had a head on his shoulders. HR declared him useless and wanted the kid with the degree.
> 
> Then COVID struck and we stopped the hiring process. Which is a good thing because I would have strangled that motherfucker with his own entrails inside of a week.
> 
> HR departments are literally ticking boxes and not paying any attention at all to experience, fit, or personality types. The HR person that struck candidate one was in the room for all interviews. She saw the whole thing and still thought candidate two was the better choice. THIS is the world we're in now. I'd have never been hired had HR been involved in the process because I don't have a degree.
> 
> Thankfully, they haven't managed to back-filter enough bullshit to boot me yet, though every year they come up with some new requirement for my position. It was especially hilarious when they asked me for my resume after I'd been working here for twelve years.
> 
> Now, back to college tuition bitching.



Sounds crappy. This is when you escalate to your manager and the HR person's manager. I've seen similar thing happen, and you'd be surprised how quick getting managers involved can refocus on corrrct values.


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> I'm really not trying to be rude, but she did have a choice. She chose to take a loan and go to college. She could have applied for work without a degree instead. She could have went to community college. She could have worked an administration job and gotten a tuition waiver for a few classes each semester. She chose to borrow money.
> 
> If the issue here is that college should retroactively be free, that isn't fair to people that paid back their loans. Are you expecting the government to reimburse them? And why college loans and not mortgages? I would argue mortgages are more important than college loans (shelter is a basic need, education should come after shelter).
> 
> I'm all for reform, but I think saying she had no choice is going a bit far.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds crappy. This is when you escalate to your manager and the HR person's manager. I've seen similar thing happen, and you'd be surprised how quick getting managers involved can refocus on corrrct values.


It was the head of HR that was involved. The only person to go to witch conflicts with her is the COO below the CEO, and from what I've witnessed people bringing issues with her to him don't tend to fare well.

I was glad the process got stopped in its tracks, even if the reason was crappy.


----------



## Vyn

Say for arguments sake a degree/qualification costs $100k. That degree earns the recipient $50k+ a year, the degree has paid for itself in less than 10 years and you still have the rest of that person's working life as tax revenue, far greater tax revenue than if they got a position that doesn't require a qualification. Forgiving college loans and making future qualifications free is a no brainer.


----------



## Jonathan20022

I'm for selective loan forgiveness, and I mean real selective based on your field of study. And a percentage of your tuition, I'm sick of the narrative that a young adult can make terrible financial decisions and be exonerated completely on the basis that they are allowed to make those mistakes.

Loans aren't predatory, you should read the terms and budget your college experience accordingly before *WILLINGLY *signing onto 5/6 figure debt.

I spoke to an old high school peer who chose to go out of state to their "dream" school and hasn't even started their career 4 years out of college. There's nothing wrong with have a dream college, but if you can't afford it, then loans aren't your golden key. But people will constantly fetishize the college experience and having a degree coming out of an Ivy League or preferred institution.

My dream school was Brown University for their comprehensive CS program. I couldn't afford to go there, and there was no way in hell I was going to be able to without loan assistance. So I decided to compromise between FSU or FAU, and I went with the latter purely because of the cost.

Tuition Costs Per Year (by 2010 Rates)
Brown - 54k
FSU - 19k
FAU - 11k

I paid for 4 and a half years of education at FAU, less than a single year would have cost me in Rhode Island. I paid my way with grants and scholarships I earned in Highschool, but took a loan for the last 2 semesters. The amount of unclaimed grants alone could pay for thousands of people's educational costs or at least a significant portion of it.

But even then I am all for people having student loan relief/forgiveness. But it should be enforced based on eligibility, and percentage based on various factors *INCLUDING *selected major. And let's not pretend that there aren't solutions for those who already paid their loans off, at the very least some tax breaks for those who *WOULD BE *eligible for an amount of forgiveness to be awarded some kind of relief elsewhere.


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> I mean, I know you're arguing against student loan forgiveness... but arguably that's a form of student loan forgiveness. Blowing up your credit for seven years but having a clean slate after that, upon graduation, would be kind of a no brainer for anyone with more than modest student debt, and you'd see a whole avalanche of personal bankruptcies if that was passed into law today, for purely strategic reasons.


 Right. I see that. I feel it a better and more more fair solution. Give people the option to go into mass debt and declare bankruptcy if needed, but don't just forgive it unless everyone else is going to get the opportunity for a free education for whatever they want also. Maybe a lump sum payout should be an option too? If the average debt being forgiven is $75k for example then pepole could opt to go to school for free or get a $75k lump sum payout. This way the people with education will still get an immediate advantage in the workforce while all the responsible people can go to school and get an updated education and have a competing chance for a future or they can at least get some compensation for being responsible. 
-I don't think people should be bailed out when they knew beforehand what they were getting into.



Mathemagician said:


> This post is the most common complaint we see, and can essentially be summarized as “Jealousy”. And I feel you, because YES that feeling of “missed opportunities” SUCKS. Your feelings are valid. That’s ok.



I get what you're saying but I don't think it's so much jealousy or missed opportunities as it is rewarding irresponsibility. Why should anyone just have their student loan forgiven? They agreed to a contract. I think, at the very most, the fairest thing to do would be to just allow people to file bankruptcy on it or something. 
- People with college have more opportiunity and make more money than those that don't have college. Now we want to make the wage and employment gap even larger? Think of all the people that would be getting screwed by this that have no college education.
- How about forgive the debt but make people work it off in prison or community service for the next 10 years while everyone else is allowed to go to school and catch up? Then we can all be on the same page in terms of education, income and employment opportunities. I just don't see the point of bailing out people with an already huge advantage. Another option would be to fogive the debt but not anyone forgiven to earn more than minimum wage for the next 20 years. This would help balance things out a bit. 
- Yes, I'm in extreme dystopia mode right now. Signing off ; (


----------



## Mathemagician

c7spheres said:


> Right. I see that. I feel it a better and more more fair solution. Give people the option to go into mass debt and declare bankruptcy if needed, but don't just forgive it unless everyone else is going to get the opportunity for a free education for whatever they want also. Maybe a lump sum payout should be an option too? If the average debt being forgiven is $75k for example then pepole could opt to go to school for free or get a $75k lump sum payout. This way the people with education will still get an immediate advantage in the workforce while all the responsible people can go to school and get an updated education and have a competing chance for a future or they can at least get some compensation for being responsible.
> -I don't think people should be bailed out when they knew beforehand what they were getting into.
> 
> 
> 
> I get what you're saying but I don't think it's so much jealousy or missed opportunities as it is rewarding irresponsibility. Why should anyone just have their student loan forgiven? They agreed to a contract. I think, at the very most, the fairest thing to do would be to just allow people to file bankruptcy on it or something.
> - People with college have more opportiunity and make more money than those that don't have college. Now we want to make the wage and employment gap even larger? Think of all the people that would be getting screwed by this that have no college education.
> - How about forgive the debt but make people work it off in prison or community service for the next 10 years while everyone else is allowed to go to school and catch up? Then we can all be on the same page in terms of education, income and employment opportunities. I just don't see the point of bailing out people with an already huge advantage. Another option would be to fogive the debt but not anyone forgiven to earn more than minimum wage for the next 20 years. This would help balance things out a bit.
> - Yes, I'm in extreme dystopia mode right now. Signing off ; (



Because debt is the problem for everyone. And if college is made free by taxing for it, anyone who wants to go CAN go, but anyone who doesn’t want to does not.

The “goal” is making education accessible. It is NOT to “give out free money”. Life is long. If someone wants to go back to school at 40 for free they absolutely can.

But I’m not advocating for the government to just hand out the “cost of college” in a check. That’s just 6 years of $1k/mo universal basic income by another name. And a different conversation altogether.

As an example, the VA system will NEVER benefit me. But I WANT to pay for it. I actually want veterans to have access to the same healthcare that senators get. I really want that for everyone, but at the very least for servicemen and women.

I’m not asking for the government to build me a separate hospital. I want people to have access to the things they need.

Similarly by that logic Medicare doesn’t help me, so why TF should I pay for old retired people today? Because it HELPS people live better lives.

The entire country would get a tiny ass “tax break” if we eliminated social security. But millions of retirees would be unable to purchase both food and medicine.

Libraries are not used BY everyone but are available for the benefit OF everyone.

So we pay for it. Because it helps society.

You are focusing on “I want a cut of it for ME right NOW”.

If there is someone who wants to start their own firm, but they can’t yet leave their day job b/c of the debt they owe. The act of removing their debt allows them to start businesses and that allows them to hire more people and that may be a job opening for you in the future to make more money. Even without having gone to college a person would stand to benefit from new/more businesses. When there’s more jobs than people wages go up, which helps everyone.

You are still focused on “punishing” those who took out loans.

By going to college one is already forgoing 4+ years of income. They only people who I knew that partied in their early 20’s were the ones that started working immediately. The 4 years of lost income is already a punishment.

Doubling down and demanding that the screws be stuck to them with lifelong debt is shortsighted for all involved. It’s a “feelings” reason instead of an “economic” reason to resist absolving debt.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Mathemagician said:


> If there is someone who wants to start their own firm, but they can’t yet leave their day job b/c of the debt they owe. The act of removing their debt allows them to start businesses and that allows them to hire more people and that may be a job opening for you in the future to make more money. Even without having gone to college a person would stand to benefit from new/more businesses. When there’s more jobs than people wages go up, which helps everyone.
> 
> You are still focused on “punishing” those who took out loans.



I'm focusing on this because I don't understand your sentiment, no one's punishing anyone.

These young adults are willingly signing themselves out to massive loans without consideration for how they work or the timeline in which they are expected to pay them back.

The amount of people that fall into your "budding entrepenuers" group who are just waiting to pay their debt off before they can go out into the world and be successful isn't as massive as you make it seem. 

They are UNDER of their own volition, they don't have the funding to start their own business once it's paid off unless they take out business loans and statistically, call for bankruptcy in less than a year afterwards.


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> I'm focusing on this because I don't understand your sentiment, no one's punishing anyone.
> 
> These young adults are willingly signing themselves out to massive loans without consideration for how they work or the timeline in which they are expected to pay them back.
> 
> The amount of people that fall into your "budding entrepenuers" group who are just waiting to pay their debt off before they can go out into the world and be successful isn't as massive as you make it seem.
> 
> They are UNDER of their own volition, they don't have the funding to start their own business once it's paid off unless they take out business loans and statistically, call for bankruptcy in less than a year afterwards.



It's under their own volition, but it's not a situation that realistically people have any control over at that age. Let's say you worked hard and are good enough to get into a top private school. Your choices:
(1) You have rich parents, you get to go.
(2) You don't have rich parents, you take out loans.
(3) You don't go.

Somehow being 18 and having that money saved up is not realistic. And so that's a pretty shitty set of circumstances and is just going to grow the class divide wider. I respect schools like Harvard that have a big enough endowment that they'll basically work with you whatever your financial need be to get you in there, but most of the other hundreds of thousands of qualified individuals with their sites on other private schools aren't as lucky. And if you can get into Brown, I'd like to see you go to Brown.

I like the UK system. You get a degree, and if you get out and aren't making about a threshold high enough to pay it back after N years, it's forgiven. If you don't make above a certain threshold, you're not making huge payments. Honestly I forget the details but it's definitely nice. What I like about it as it acts as a referendum to the uni, that if they charge high tuition, their programs should be worth it. That goes for any degree area.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> It's under their own volition, but it's not a situation that realistically people have any control over at that age. Let's say you worked hard and are good enough to get into a top private school. Your choices:
> (1) You have rich parents, you get to go.
> (2) You don't have rich parents, you take out loans.
> (3) You don't go.
> 
> Somehow being 18 and having that money saved up is not realistic. And so that's a pretty shitty set of circumstances and is just going to grow the class divide wider. I respect schools like Harvard that have a big enough endowment that they'll basically work with you whatever your financial need be to get you in there, but most of the other hundreds of thousands of qualified individuals with their sites on other private schools aren't as lucky. And if you can get into Brown, I'd like to see you go to Brown.
> 
> I like the UK system. You get a degree, and if you get out and aren't making about a threshold high enough to pay it back after N years, it's forgiven. If you don't make above a certain threshold, you're not making huge payments. Honestly I forget the details but it's definitely nice. What I like about it as it acts as a referendum to the uni, that if they charge high tuition, their programs should be worth it. That goes for any degree area.


Only the top schools in the UK are allowed to charge the full 9k. Think Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and QUB.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Only the top schools in the UK are allowed to charge the full 9k. Think Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and QUB.



And UCL...


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> And UCL...


And Edinburgh.


----------



## Jonathan20022

narad said:


> It's under their own volition, but it's not a situation that realistically people have any control over at that age. Let's say you worked hard and are good enough to get into a top private school. Your choices:
> (1) You have rich parents, you get to go.
> (2) You don't have rich parents, you take out loans.
> (3) You don't go.
> 
> Somehow being 18 and having that money saved up is not realistic. And so that's a pretty shitty set of circumstances and is just going to grow the class divide wider. I respect schools like Harvard that have a big enough endowment that they'll basically work with you whatever your financial need be to get you in there, but most of the other hundreds of thousands of qualified individuals with their sites on other private schools aren't as lucky. And if you can get into Brown, I'd like to see you go to Brown.
> 
> I like the UK system. You get a degree, and if you get out and aren't making about a threshold high enough to pay it back after N years, it's forgiven. If you don't make above a certain threshold, you're not making huge payments. Honestly I forget the details but it's definitely nice. What I like about it as it acts as a referendum to the uni, that if they charge high tuition, their programs should be worth it. That goes for any degree area.



No, you go somewhere else where you can afford it. Like in my own personal college journey, 220k BEFORE cost of living didn't sound appealing. So I still went to college and got the education I desired. I got into Brown because my mother thought I could and forced me to apply to prove a point and showboat to her friends. But I still chose not to go because it was financially irresponsible. I would have loved to at the end of the day, but I'm not going to live out of my means and shackle myself then hope the government bails me out.

Why is a common University seen as something less when it isn't? Peers who went to prestigious unis aren't out-earning me and other graduates, those of us who stayed local and went to the nearest or most affordable option.

I'm not against forgiveness programs as a whole, but there needs to be some serious eligibility concerns so people don't make irresponsible decisions and expect to be bailed out as a realistic expectation.

That system sounds wonderful in the UK, because I know what it's like to look for work and not have any prospects. It can be more daunting than just get degree -> automatically find job, but not always the case.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I just don't understand why folks are so willing to spite thier own prosperity because someone might have an opportunity for a better life that they themselves might not have gotten. 

It feels very American though, that's for sure.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just don't understand why folks are so willing to spite thier own prosperity because someone might have an opportunity for a better life that they themselves might not have gotten.
> 
> It feels very American though, that's for sure.


I think it's seeping out, too.


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> I'm focusing on this because I don't understand your sentiment, no one's punishing anyone.
> 
> These young adults are willingly signing themselves out to massive loans without consideration for how they work or the timeline in which they are expected to pay them back.
> 
> The amount of people that fall into your "budding entrepenuers" group who are just waiting to pay their debt off before they can go out into the world and be successful isn't as massive as you make it seem.
> 
> They are UNDER of their own volition, they don't have the funding to start their own business once it's paid off unless they take out business loans and statistically, call for bankruptcy in less than a year afterwards.



See, you want to “win an argument” not “have a conversation”.

I never said the budding business owner group was massive. I said it existed.

I did however say that every dollar not going to paying off overinflated university prices will go right into other peoples businesses.

I went to a state school. I have peers who worked nonstop throughout school and still had 20-30k+ in loans or they would not have been able to afford to eat and pay rent.

You are still saying that you believe education should be “exclusive” and should remain as a “Product that is for sale”.

That is inherently classist.

The cost of a degree has inflated so much for something that this very thread has admitted is now a baseline requirement for any non-trade job.

It needs to be covered and available to everyone, because that would be EQUITABLE. It’s not about making everyone go, it’s about giving them the option.

I don’t want someone else’s kid to feel like their only option is to sign away their life for years in the military or take on ridiculous debt. Especially if they know what they want to study/do.

Why should they be forced into either military or financial servitude? Because a few people are jealous that others may better their own life after giving up 4 years of earnings?

College should be free and accessible to everyone. That way if one chooses not to go it’s THEIR choice. But if their sibling wants to go then that’s THEIR choice. America should be about real freedom of choice. Not “which form of servitude do you prefer”?

Also private schools are just that - private. They should not receive government funding. State schools should be accessible. 



StevenC said:


> Only the top schools in the UK are allowed to charge the full 9k. Think Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and QUB.



Is that 9k per year? For a top university?

Average American tuition is easily close to that for a state school per semester depending on where you go.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I just don't understand why folks are so willing to spite thier own prosperity because someone might have an opportunity for a better life that they themselves might not have gotten.
> 
> It feels very American though, that's for sure.



Because most people are emotional. And they jump to “why should I pay for someone else’s XYZ”.

Because healthy people work harder and earn more and thus spend more.

Because educated people earn more and spend more.

But they get told a program will cost for example $400billion per year and assume that they’ll foot the whole bill out of their single 40k/yr. by politicians who have been lobbied.

When it actually comes out to $1,212 per person for 330 million people. Let’s assume 200million work, that’s $2k per year. But since about 65% of the country makes less than $65k/yr so with our progressive taxation the bulk of the costs would come out of the highest earners making say $1mm+ per year if you implemented it solely to be funded from personal income tax.

If you rolled it into corporate income tax you could slap it on companies making above $100million per year and easily cover education for the whole nation.

But you’d get told by politicians that companies will shut down and fire their staff if they are hit with a 1-2% tax for education.

Remember, if you don’t give your all for the “the companies right to fuck you” you’re a communist.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Mathemagician said:


> See, you want to “win an argument” not “have a conversation”.
> 
> I never said the budding business owner group was massive. I said it existed.
> 
> I did however say that every dollar not going to paying off overinflated university prices will go right into other peoples businesses.
> 
> I went to a state school. I have peers who worked nonstop throughout school and still had 20-30k+ in loans or they would not have been able to afford to eat and pay rent.
> 
> You are still saying that you believe education should be “exclusive” and should remain as a “Product that is for sale”.
> 
> That is inherently classist.
> 
> The cost of a degree has inflated so much for something that this very thread has admitted is now a baseline requirement for any non-trade job.
> 
> It needs to be covered and available to everyone, because that would be EQUITABLE. It’s not about making everyone go, it’s about giving them the option.
> 
> I don’t want someone else’s kid to feel like their only option is to sign away their life for years in the military or take on ridiculous debt. Especially if they know what they want to study/do.



I'll play your game if that's really how you want to have this discussion.

I never said education should should be gate-kept, and it's not. The cost of education varies by institution, location, and prestige WILDLY.

https://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data

Do you know how many grants and scholarships I didn't qualify for expired without recipients when I went to apply for them regularly?

Most of my college education was funded by my Scholarships and Grants, and I took a very minor loan at the end. I didn't have to resort to the military or other means just to get an education, because there are options for those who truly want to go to college and can't afford it like I couldn't.

I'm not against free education or even heavily discounted education. But if I had a say, I'd limit it to strictly STEM fields and leave it at that. If you want your degree in anything else, you're free to apply to all existing scholarships/grants freed up that would normally cover those STEM degrees.

That means that the poorest student who wants to become a mathematician, the richest prospective engineer, and everyone inbetween can get a comprehensive cost free education in a select few fields. Is that still a classist system, or do I have to include every declared major under the sun to qualify as non-classist?


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> I'll play your game if that's really how you want to have this discussion.
> 
> I never said education should should be gate-kept, and it's not. The cost of education varies by institution, location, and prestige WILDLY.
> 
> https://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data
> 
> Do you know how many grants and scholarships I didn't qualify for expired without recipients when I went to apply for them regularly?
> 
> Most of my college education was funded by my Scholarships and Grants, and I took a very minor loan at the end. I didn't have to resort to the military or other means just to get an education, because there are options for those who truly want to go to college and can't afford it like I couldn't.
> 
> I'm not against free education or even heavily discounted education. But if I had a say, I'd limit it to strictly STEM fields and leave it at that. If you want your degree in anything else, you're free to apply to all existing scholarships/grants freed up that would normally cover those STEM degrees.
> 
> That means that the poorest student who wants to become a mathematician, the richest prospective engineer, and everyone inbetween can get a comprehensive cost free education in a select few fields. Is that still a classist system, or do I have to include every declared major under the sun to qualify as non-classist?



I think that's not really appreciating the university as an ecosystem. You can whittle down a university to just STEM, but I think that all the STEM grads would be worse for it. Are you trying to create critical thinkers with a cultured world view, or are you trying to breed mentats? 

A university is supposed to be a transformative experience that really broadens your mind, gets you to explore new fields, and fosters intellectual development. It sounds like you want university to be a trade school for STEM, or at least are okay with huge economic prioritization of those fields, and I think that's really selling short the mission of these schools. You want to be a CS guy and take a couple good philosophy classes? You need philosophy professors for that, and then you need a philosophy department and philosophy students, etc. The same holds for all the fields that one might consider worthless because there's not a huge practical demand for them outside. So I'm not really on board with this science people go free, everyone else pony up because they want anthropology or music to be the focus of their lives.


----------



## penguin_316

No time to read through this thread right now, but I think it’s somewhat of a good idea.

However, having paid $40,000 already of my student debt. I don’t find it very fair that others will be getting a free lunch for defaulting. I’ve been paying it for years on end and am still not done.

Also, if you had to take non federal loans as well, those aren’t being deferred at all. I’ve had to pay it all year just like any other bill. No forbearance.


----------



## Jonathan20022

narad said:


> I think that's not really appreciating the university as an ecosystem. You can whittle down a university to just STEM, but I think that all the STEM grads would be worse for it. Are you trying to create critical thinkers with a cultured world view, or are you trying to breed mentats?
> 
> A university is supposed to be a transformative experience that really broadens your mind, gets you to explore new fields, and fosters intellectual development. It sounds like you want university to be a trade school for STEM, or at least are okay with huge economic prioritization of those fields, and I think that's really selling short the mission of these schools. You want to be a CS guy and take a couple good philosophy classes? You need philosophy professors for that, and then you need a philosophy department and philosophy students, etc. The same holds for all the fields that one might consider worthless because there's not a huge practical demand for them outside. So I'm not really on board with this science people go free, everyone else pony up because they want anthropology or music to be the focus of their lives.



I think you're just doing exactly what I mentioned before and romanticizing/fetishizing the college experience. I know a guy who spent 8 years in my college before landing on his career path and actually pursuing it to completion, I remember him using very similar wording as you to justify how he felt about it. But well past graduation and into our 30's, he views that time and money a little differently looking back.

We can agree to disagree, but college to me is objectively a means to qualify you as an entry level professional in a field of your choice while broadening your understanding of your chosen career path. Exploring new fields while in college isn't free, and you're more than capable of doing that prior to entering college in the most data driven state the world has ever been. Like how I was initially an aspiring Architect, and I can dig up sketchbooks of my work and drawings from back when I was in middle school. I ended up speaking to family friends and reached out to professionals about the career path and difficulties associated with it, and decided to change my career path before I landed in college. I did this because any time spent in college is cost passed on directly to me. If I spent a year and half on classes, I would have been in school for 5 and a half year, not just 4.

I also never called non-STEM degrees worthless, I just said they shouldn't be free (IMO). I'm still not against need based forgiveness, but I've yet to see any reasonable counters.


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> I think you're just doing exactly what I mentioned before and romanticizing/fetishizing the college experience. I know a guy who spent 8 years in my college before landing on his career path and actually pursuing it to completion, I remember him using very similar wording as you to justify how he felt about it. But well past graduation and into our 30's, he views that time and money a little differently looking back.
> 
> We can agree to disagree, but college to me is objectively a means to qualify you as an entry level professional in a field of your choice while broadening your understanding of your chosen career path.



It sounds like you just described a trade school.


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> I'll play your game if that's really how you want to have this discussion.
> 
> I never said education should should be gate-kept, and it's not. The cost of education varies by institution, location, and prestige WILDLY.
> 
> https://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data
> 
> Do you know how many grants and scholarships I didn't qualify for expired without recipients when I went to apply for them regularly?
> 
> Most of my college education was funded by my Scholarships and Grants, and I took a very minor loan at the end. I didn't have to resort to the military or other means just to get an education, because there are options for those who truly want to go to college and can't afford it like I couldn't.
> 
> I'm not against free education or even heavily discounted education. But if I had a say, I'd limit it to strictly STEM fields and leave it at that. If you want your degree in anything else, you're free to apply to all existing scholarships/grants freed up that would normally cover those STEM degrees.
> 
> That means that the poorest student who wants to become a mathematician, the richest prospective engineer, and everyone inbetween can get a comprehensive cost free education in a select few fields. Is that still a classist system, or do I have to include every declared major under the sun to qualify as non-classist?




Several of the most successful investment managers and salespeople I know have majored in anthropology, psychology, or other liberal arts. 

They started working at the bottom at a firm and then moved firms when appropriate for better opportunities. Some got advanced degrees later in their careers and others didn’t. 

They all drive the nicest cars and have the nicest homes and send their kids to private school all while being set for retirement, I’ve worked on their accounts. 

They are also all over 55 years old and went to school when it was cheap as fuck. So THEY could work a summer and pay the full tuition on a minimum wage job. They openly admit this isn’t the case any more. 

Their degree didn’t affect their earning potential versus a finance/accounting major, but “having a degree” was the minimum requirement to be allowed to work. 

A liberal arts degree isn’t some earnings death sentence unless a person isn’t adaptable. 

As narad said, you have taken a narrow view of which degrees are “worthwhile” and applied it to everyone. 

What is the chatty friendly person who would make a fantastic salesperson supposed to do major in chemistry? What about the marketing major, that’s not as “practical” as accounting so no more marketing? Do we get rid of graphic design programs? 

The best rise to the top but one can’t do that without having a degree to even be able to interview. 

Either college should be affordable or it shouldn’t. But at the end of the day EVERYONE’s “no” comes from being jealous that they aren’t 18 again and able to do things differently/take advantage of new opportunities. 

I thought we WANTED to make things better/easier for the next generation? That’s what parents want for their kids right? Better than they had, not worse? ‘Cause for schooling it’s worse right now.


----------



## Jonathan20022

narad said:


> It sounds like you just described a trade school.



And it sounds like you didn't address anything else I said 

I would have loved to have this weird transformative experience where I get to explore things regadless of cost. But my education cost me money, and my family didn't have the funds to help me, so I had to think of the consequences of dawdling until I landed on my career of choice. I don't think people should be allowed to waste time free of charge, while also taking the spot in a seat for a course they may not have intentions of completing. While others eagerly await for the same course next semester.

We have different viewpoints on how college should be, there's nothing wrong with that.



Mathemagician said:


> Several of the most successful investment managers and salespeople I know have majored in anthropology, psychology, or other liberal arts.
> 
> They started working at the bottom at a firm and then moved firms when appropriate for better opportunities. Some got advanced degrees later in their careers and others didn’t.
> 
> They all drive the nicest cars and have the nicest homes and send their kids to private school all while being set for retirement, I’ve worked on their accounts.



The only comment I'll make on the anecdotal graduates, is that not one of those people ended up doing what they majored in and took the monetary route. They majored in something, and then became *Consultant *at *Investment Firm #7385*, not sure what you're trying to say by citing them.

But I worked full time up until my last two years of college where I took up a more fun weekend job that earned me more money while I dedicated the weekdays to my studies. Not working through education is a middle class/upper middleclass + reality, because you still need to pay for housing/food/essentials.



> They are also all over 55 years old and went to school when it was cheap as fuck. So THEY could work a summer and pay the full tuition on a minimum wage job. They openly admit this isn’t the case any more.



I made minimum wage in my first job in Highschool, by the time I was working in College I was making 12.50/hr + Commission working sales at the now dead Sony Stores in 2010. If you're making minimum wage at 18/21 years of age, that just means you had the privilege of not *needing* to work the second you legally could. You shouldn't be making minimum wage when you're at a college level, period.



> What is the chatty friendly person who would make a fantastic salesperson supposed to do major in chemistry? What about the marketing major, that’s not as “practical” as accounting so no more marketing? Do we get rid of graphic design programs?



Dunno if you actually read my replies, but the other degrees exist as they do now in my suggested setting. Those degrees still literally exist, except they still cost money and you're eligible for scholarships/grants/loans to pay for that degree. They just take the courses and complete the degree of their choice, they're free to get the degree in chemistry and pursue a career path in sales.

You just want every student to be given carte blanche to do whatever they want in an educational environment risk free/cost free.



> Either college should be affordable or it shouldn’t. But at the end of the day EVERYONE’s “no” comes from being jealous that they aren’t 18 again and able to do things differently/take advantage of new opportunities.
> 
> I thought we WANTED to make things better/easier for the next generation? That’s what parents want for their kids right? Better than they had, not worse? ‘Cause for schooling it’s worse right now.



Great, broad sweeping generalization.

Listen dude, I'm going to be a parent someday. And if my children's education won't cost me or them a dime, I'd be happier for it. Stop projecting this weird image of a sniveling jealous monster who wants other people to suffer, it's really weird that's always the go to.

HOW affordable should college be, who is eligible for it, how are you subsidizing free/discounted education? I'll wait for your comprehensive plan instead of another identical reply to not move the discussion forward.


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> And it sounds like you didn't address anything else I said
> 
> I would have loved to have this weird transformative experience where I get to explore things regadless of cost. But my education cost me money, and my family didn't have the funds to help me, so I had to think of the consequences of dawdling until I landed on my career of choice. I don't think people should be allowed to waste time free of charge, while also taking the spot in a seat for a course they may not have intentions of completing. While others eagerly await for the same course next semester.
> 
> We have different viewpoints on how college should be, there's nothing wrong with that.



Well I mean, I did address what's at the heart of it, right?

Just look at the words you use to describe other people: "dawdling", "waste time", "free of charge", "taking the spot". Vs. who? You, because you're going for STEM? A lot of the brightest, and absolute best CS grads I met weren't CS undergrad, and had backgrounds in social sciences and arts. They were obviously hardworking in undergrad, and brought those perspectives into their later work. And if they had stuck it out in their undergrad field, I'm sure they would have brought value to the world there as well. I'm much more concerned with getting the brightest people into the schools that will challenge them, then in trying to get people to pursue STEM or other fields of "value".

And one of the most important things a university offers is surrounding you with your peers -- people who worked similarly hard, and have similar aptitudes, and similar interests, to really push you. If you're accepted to this university and you don't go because you can't afford it, I could argue you're actually hurting the experience of every student there, depriving them of yourself, so that you could have your spot* filled by some person (who likely by no efforts of their own, at age ~17) is in a better financial spot.

Like you keep coming back to your choice as the responsible thing. And maybe it was. But it probably wasn't the best thing, and it's sad that money dictated your choices for you.

*of course the thought of "spots" and acceptance to a university as a very accurate measure of your aptitudes is a very distorted one, but maybe in the abstract it's okay.


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> And it sounds like you didn't address anything else I said
> 
> I would have loved to have this weird transformative experience where I get to explore things regadless of cost. But my education cost me money, and my family didn't have the funds to help me, so I had to think of the consequences of dawdling until I landed on my career of choice. I don't think people should be allowed to waste time free of charge, while also taking the spot in a seat for a course they may not have intentions of completing. While others eagerly await for the same course next semester.
> 
> We have different viewpoints on how college should be, there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> The only comment I'll make on the anecdotal graduates, is that not one of those people ended up doing what they majored in and took the monetary route. They majored in something, and then became *Consultant *at *Investment Firm #7385*, not sure what you're trying to say by citing them.
> 
> But I worked full time up until my last two years of college where I took up a more fun weekend job that earned me more money while I dedicated the weekdays to my studies. Not working through education is a middle class/upper middleclass + reality, because you still need to pay for housing/food/essentials.
> 
> 
> 
> I made minimum wage in my first job in Highschool, by the time I was working in College I was making 12.50/hr + Commission working sales at the now dead Sony Stores in 2010. If you're making minimum wage at 18/21 years of age, that just means you had the privilege of not *needing* to work the second you legally could. You shouldn't be making minimum wage when you're at a college level, period.
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno if you actually read my replies, but the other degrees exist as they do now in my suggested setting. Those degrees still literally exist, except they still cost money and you're eligible for scholarships/grants/loans to pay for that degree. They just take the courses and complete the degree of their choice, they're free to get the degree in chemistry and pursue a career path in sales.
> 
> You just want every student to be given carte blanche to do whatever they want in an educational environment risk free/cost free.
> 
> 
> 
> Great, broad sweeping generalization.
> 
> Listen dude, I'm going to be a parent someday. And if my children's education won't cost me or them a dime, I'd be happier for it. Stop projecting this weird image of a sniveling jealous monster who wants other people to suffer, it's really weird that's always the go to.
> 
> HOW affordable should college be, who is eligible for it, how are you subsidizing free/discounted education? I'll wait for your comprehensive plan instead of another identical reply to not move the discussion forward.



You seem to think I’m attacking you. I’m not. I’m asking you to explain how your hang-up is not boiled down to “I had to pay so everyone should have to”?

You only pre-approved specific degrees. There is nothing wrong with majoring in something non-stem and then making it work career wise.

Yeah man, everyone eventually takes the “money” route. I went to college specifically to “get a job” and nothing more, so I majored in finance.

My first internship? From a professor whose office hours I went to by skipping shifts at that job that meant I would have less money to eat. But that networking helped me get an interview with a firm. My other internship? From joining a club for which I had to skip shifts to attend meetings in order to get in networking to meet a person at the firm I wanted to work at.

I literally ate less so I could do the requisite networking. It absolutely paid off but it was a gamble. The majority of people I interned with? Private school kids/kids whose families had connections. One of the advisors was buddies with one of the kids dad - THATS what college let’s you do. Meet people who can introduce you to other people.

I worked since I was 15 and actually took pay cuts by taking those internships.

I don’t think you’re “mean” or whatever. I’m trying to figure out what your actual pushback is and it seems that our worldviews differ on the minutiae.

Yours appears to be: “I don’t want to risk person A doing nothing even if it means person B gets ahead in life”.

My worldview is: “I don’t care if person A does nothing if it means person B gets ahead in life”.

I’d even be fine with zero interest loans for education - but then we’d still have to bring the inflated cost down and still let them be absolved like the U.K. model.
I don’t have to create a custom study for you, plenty have been done on how education could be paid for. We’re having a qualitative conversation about ideas, which funny enough is more than our senate has done in ~12 years.


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> I'm really not trying to be rude, but she did have a choice. She chose to take a loan and go to college. She could have applied for work without a degree instead. She could have went to community college. She could have worked an administration job and gotten a tuition waiver for a few classes each semester. She chose to borrow money.
> 
> If the issue here is that college should retroactively be free, that isn't fair to people that paid back their loans. Are you expecting the government to reimburse them? And why college loans and not mortgages? I would argue mortgages are more important than college loans (shelter is a basic need, education should come after shelter).
> 
> I'm all for reform, but I think saying she had no choice is going a bit far.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds crappy. This is when you escalate to your manager and the HR person's manager. I've seen similar thing happen, and you'd be surprised how quick getting managers involved can refocus on corrrct values.



Just no. Literally gross. 

There are no community schools for doctorates. It’s the exact opposite of the “American Dream”. You’re arguing that if you want to improve your lot in life you have to accept 30 years of massive debt. I literally can’t follow your logic. Libertarianism, Fiscal Conservatism, Socialism? What kind of crap is this? What covers the belief that you should enrich the government by paying student loan interest to the federal government so they can make money on your education? What kind of crap political ideology accepts and endorses that the US has the most expensive colleges in the world?

The whole system is wrong and the economic priorities are wrong. You invest in human capital because it pays massive dividends in the future. You don’t make education difficult to obtain. You’re arguing education should be a privilege and not a right which is disgusting.

https://www.timesinternational.net/the-most-expensive-colleges-in-the-world/


----------



## lurè

I think partly has to do with the fact that the education is a debt for the state.

At least in EU countries the government pays for your aducation by paying teachers, structures, materials and all that is needed in order to provide education to people so they can be "productive" in the future with your job.

It's like: we invest on you, so you can pay us back with your work and knowledge.

All of this gets into conflict with the american mentality.


----------



## StevenC

A lot of people are also talking like research and academia have no societal value in and of themselves. 


Mathemagician said:


> See, you want to “win an argument” not “have a conversation”.
> 
> I never said the budding business owner group was massive. I said it existed.
> 
> I did however say that every dollar not going to paying off overinflated university prices will go right into other peoples businesses.
> 
> I went to a state school. I have peers who worked nonstop throughout school and still had 20-30k+ in loans or they would not have been able to afford to eat and pay rent.
> 
> You are still saying that you believe education should be “exclusive” and should remain as a “Product that is for sale”.
> 
> That is inherently classist.
> 
> The cost of a degree has inflated so much for something that this very thread has admitted is now a baseline requirement for any non-trade job.
> 
> It needs to be covered and available to everyone, because that would be EQUITABLE. It’s not about making everyone go, it’s about giving them the option.
> 
> I don’t want someone else’s kid to feel like their only option is to sign away their life for years in the military or take on ridiculous debt. Especially if they know what they want to study/do.
> 
> Why should they be forced into either military or financial servitude? Because a few people are jealous that others may better their own life after giving up 4 years of earnings?
> 
> College should be free and accessible to everyone. That way if one chooses not to go it’s THEIR choice. But if their sibling wants to go then that’s THEIR choice. America should be about real freedom of choice. Not “which form of servitude do you prefer”?
> 
> Also private schools are just that - private. They should not receive government funding. State schools should be accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that 9k per year? For a top university?
> 
> Average American tuition is easily close to that for a state school per semester depending on where you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Because most people are emotional. And they jump to “why should I pay for someone else’s XYZ”.
> 
> Because healthy people work harder and earn more and thus spend more.
> 
> Because educated people earn more and spend more.
> 
> But they get told a program will cost for example $400billion per year and assume that they’ll foot the whole bill out of their single 40k/yr. by politicians who have been lobbied.
> 
> When it actually comes out to $1,212 per person for 330 million people. Let’s assume 200million work, that’s $2k per year. But since about 65% of the country makes less than $65k/yr so with our progressive taxation the bulk of the costs would come out of the highest earners making say $1mm+ per year if you implemented it solely to be funded from personal income tax.
> 
> If you rolled it into corporate income tax you could slap it on companies making above $100million per year and easily cover education for the whole nation.
> 
> But you’d get told by politicians that companies will shut down and fire their staff if they are hit with a 1-2% tax for education.
> 
> Remember, if you don’t give your all for the “the companies right to fuck you” you’re a communist.


Yeah, £9k a year for Cambridge or Oxford. 3 year degree. Since Jonathan was quoting 2010 levels, Cambridge and Oxford cost £3400~ a year (before the Lib Dems sold us out).


----------



## Lemonbaby

lurè said:


> I think partly has to do with the fact that the education is a debt for the state.
> 
> At least in EU countries the government pays for your aducation by paying teachers, structures, materials and all that is needed in order to provide education to people so they can be "productive" in the future with your job.
> 
> It's like: we invest on you, so you can pay us back with your work and knowledge.
> 
> All of this gets into conflict with the american mentality.


Of course, tuition fees make no sense at all. Not sure if I understand what "American mentality" thing gets in the way of providing free education? Serious question, I'm German and don't really understand the USofA...


----------



## diagrammatiks

Lemonbaby said:


> Of course, tuition fees make no sense at all. Not sure if I understand what "American mentality" thing gets in the way of providing free education? Serious question, I'm German and don't really understand the USofA...



well...taxes pay for things. taxes is taking your hard earned money and giving it to someone else.

that someone else is probably not straight and white.

so fuck them.

Murica.

or 

America is rugged individualists who (not really ever) pulled them selves up by their own (nope) bootstraps.

So if you ain't pulled yourself up you should just die.

Murcia.


----------



## fantom

USMarine75 said:


> Just no. Literally gross.
> 
> There are no community schools for doctorates. It’s the exact opposite of the “American Dream”. You’re arguing that if you want to improve your lot in life you have to accept 30 years of massive debt. I literally can’t follow your logic. Libertarianism, Fiscal Conservatism, Socialism? What kind of crap is this? What covers the belief that you should enrich the government by paying student loan interest to the federal government so they can make money on your education? What kind of crap political ideology accepts and endorses that the US has the most expensive colleges in the world?
> 
> The whole system is wrong and the economic priorities are wrong. You invest in human capital because it pays massive dividends in the future. You don’t make education difficult to obtain. You’re arguing education should be a privilege and not a right which is disgusting.
> 
> https://www.timesinternational.net/the-most-expensive-colleges-in-the-world/



Reread my first post. University is a business model. Capitalism is taking advantage of people. I said it needs reform.

What I am saying has nothing to do with how screwed up the system is. It is that you cannot enter an agreement to borrow money with no collateral then argue that you shouldn't owe the money years later. it is about fiscal responsibility of the individual.

Yes, the government and education system is ridiculous. Yes, we should fix it. It doesn't change the fact that people are knowingly entering the agreement. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is better for the country of education is free. I also said the government should not allow people to take loans that cannot be repaid. Stop the problem sooner. Again, not about privilege, about stopping the problem sooner than years of interest down the drain.

As I said, if we want to fix the education system, start with K-12. That will impact considerably more people than university.


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> As I said, if we want to fix the education system, start with K-12. That will impact considerably more people than university.


Yup. Start with replacing a few of the "memorize these facts as written in this textbook" classes with life skills classes. And not just home-ec. classes. Or at least, not home-ec as I remember it where you learn some cooking and cleaning and then talk about buying groceries. Include budgeting, long-term financial planning, being at least versed enough on contract law to not sign shit without reading through it and trying to grasp it, and teach the consequences of drowning yourself in debt before you even start working.

I know that's asking a lot, and is likely a pipe dream with the way our current school systems are set up, but that would clear up a lot of what's being tossed around this thread.

I remember my graduating year from high school and the TREMENDOUS pressure from all sides to go to college and sign up for student loans. Even parents got into the act. And at that age it's not like you have the life experience to know what's going to happen to you years down the road. Luckily I threw down with my parents and told them no in no uncertain terms because I wanted to work a few years before heading to school so I had a financial cushion. I ended up launching down a career path before going back to school and am still on it now, so it worked for me. But many of my peers weren't strong enough to tell their parents no, or were so brainwashed by the system they just happily went along with it. 

Some of them managed to claw their way back to financial stability, or at least something in the realm of financial stability, but not all of them. And my understanding from my conversations with my nieces makes it pretty clear that huge pressure to hop onto the college loan train hasn't gotten less over the years.

I do think we need to fix our entire education system, ground up. And yeah, college shouldn't proactively drain your bank accounts for several decades should you choose to go.


----------



## Mathemagician

Above snapshot stolen from elsewhere. Helpful because Iowa is considered an inexpensive/flyover state. Now try to find a job that is flexible with you missing work/shifts for exams or as your class schedule changes that will still give you 40 hrs/week.

I was good at sales so I got left the fuck alone at my job, but we also hired only 1 new person in the 4 years I was there.

Other students I knew just had their $7-8.00/hr pay with a job that wouldn’t schedule them more than 15-20hrs.


----------



## Drew

Chiming in because I got my facts wrong - the majority of US student debt actually IS publicly held, roughly 92% of it is held by the US Department of Education: 

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/... loan debt,student loan debt: $131.81 billion.

That's roughly $1.5 trillion dollars. About 8% is privately held. The US government's options with respect to that debt are a little narrower - they could engage in some sort of tender offer to buy it off private lenders and then retire it, but they couldn't compel lenders to sell. But, with the majority publicly held, it does mean that at least _theoretically_ the Federal Government could choose to write this debt off. 

A $1.5 trillion dollar price tag is a little eye-watering, especially so soon after a $2.2 trillion dollar pandemic stimulus bill, but there's no denying the sudden increase in spending power of, well, roughly a third of Americans, would have a strong stimulative effect on consumer demand. Of course, it wouldn't solve the problem of _future_ student debt, so it'd only be the first half of the puzzle. 



c7spheres said:


> I get what you're saying but I don't think it's so much jealousy or missed opportunities as it is rewarding irresponsibility. Why should anyone just have their student loan forgiven? They agreed to a contract. I think, at the very most, the fairest thing to do would be to just allow people to file bankruptcy on it or something.


I don't know what your experience was in college, but with mine, it's not like I showed up, wrote a check, and drank beer and banged sorority chicks for four years, then left with a diploma. I mean, I did that _too_... But I also worked my ass off while I was there. It was a great experience, I learned a tremendous amount, both academically and about who I was and about independence and responsibility and navigating the world... but it definitely wasn't a four year vacation - it was rewarding in the same way a lot of the other very hard things I've done in life were. 

I went to a very prestigious private school, don't owe a dime today, and if we do find a way to forgive student debt and make it free/cheap for future students, I'm not going to feel gipped or somehow upset that I was "responsible" and they don't have to be. I may not benefit from a one-time debt reduction, but I sure as shit will benefit from the economic strength that will follow.


----------



## Mathemagician

You abolish 92% of the student loan debt, and you can bet the remaining 8% will find a way to sell it off to the government.


----------



## Sumsar

In extend to my post a page or two back, regarding the price of education, just chiming in with how it is done here in Denmark where the education is free (tax paid). I am not saying this is the best way to run the show, just how we do it.

So the education is free, in that the university cannot charge money for it and depending on the subject of the degree they are awarded a sum of money for each year the student completes (60 ECTS points).
When I was studying 5 - 10 years ago, I believe the rates where in these ballparks:

For hard / natural sciences like maths, chemistry, phycics, computerscience, medicine, pharma etc the university got around 20000 $ (150000 DKK) per year completed by the student.
For pretty usefull stuff with job security, like studying to be a nurse, teacher etc they got around 15000 $
And for studying 'not so usefull stuff for society', such as studying danish, english, arts etc they got around 10000 $ per year.

Keep in mind that the average salary in Denmark is quite a bit higher than in the US, so people working at college / universities are probably paid more.
Part of the idea here is also that there is much larger cost associated with teaching stuff like physics, due to the experiments etc that you have to conduct as part of the education.
These rates then also have to cover some or all of the research done by the university. The universities can also get money from grants or through business partners, e.g. technical universities usually team up with high-tech companies to fund part of the research with the companies getting some research purely done for them through those projects.

I don't know if you consider these rates high or low, but concluding that my 5 year bachelor and master degree then cost around 100000 $ for the tax pays (which is also myself). On top of that I got paid 1000$ a month for almost 6 years (I did pay tax of those 1000$ since it was an income  ), so that is around 70000$ which covered all my living expenses and ensured I did not have a student loan after I got my degree. I did work a part time job of 12 hours a week the first 2 years I studied, for extra beer and guitar money.


----------



## fantom

So I was thinking about student loans and mortgages and how they relate more.

If you buy a house and can't pay the mortgage, the bank can take your house away from you when you foreclose or file bankruptcy. The collateral for the loan is your house. The mortgage isn't forgiven and you don't get to live in the house for free if you can't repay the mortgage.

For student loans, it seems there is a similar solution. Give people the right to "foreclose" and lose their degree. Ya, it's worthless for the lender, and ya, it is overall a waste of resources, but it gives the person a way to say the debt wasn't worth the degree and walk away with knowledge but no piece of paper.

Question here is, who pays for that? It would be similar to the housing bailout. Taxpayers would have to make a decision to revoke a bunch of degrees to help those in debt.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> For student loans, it seems there is a similar solution. Give people the right to "foreclose" and lose their degree. Ya, it's worthless for the lender, and ya, it is overall a waste of resources, but it gives the person a way to say the debt wasn't worth the degree and walk away with knowledge but no piece of paper.



WHaaaaaa???


----------



## Mathemagician

fantom said:


> So I was thinking about student loans and mortgages and how they relate more.
> 
> If you buy a house and can't pay the mortgage, the bank can take your house away from you when you foreclose or file bankruptcy. The collateral for the loan is your house. The mortgage isn't forgiven and you don't get to live in the house for free if you can't repay the mortgage.
> 
> For student loans, it seems there is a similar solution. Give people the right to "foreclose" and lose their degree. Ya, it's worthless for the lender, and ya, it is overall a waste of resources, but it gives the person a way to say the debt wasn't worth the degree and walk away with knowledge but no piece of paper.
> 
> Question here is, who pays for that? It would be similar to the housing bailout. Taxpayers would have to make a decision to revoke a bunch of degrees to help those in debt.



In what world is that “result” of removing debt, AND the degree actually better than JUST removing the debt?

Aside from jealousy.

This “solution” is still about the emotional response of someone without a degree FEELING jilted. And wanting to “get back” at those that might directly benefit from a policy change.

“Gotta give back that degree” bro the entire country would just default and lie about it. Literally all of them would. You think companies aren’t going to hire them when literally everyone does it? You proposing wasting tax dollars to “track” that too? 

It’s just debt forgiveness with extra steps. To appease other’s feelings with zero economic benefit.


----------



## Necris

narad said:


> WHaaaaaa???



Basically this.


----------



## c7spheres

- I take your points, but I'm still trying to figure out why any student loan debt should be forgiven at all. I don't think Covid or any other reason is a good reason. I could understand suspending payments for a few years or something but not total forgiveness. People made a contract and knew what they were getting in to. They were not frauded or coerced etc..


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> In what world is that “result” of removing debt, AND the degree actually better than JUST removing the debt?
> 
> Aside from jealousy.
> 
> This “solution” is still about the emotional response of someone without a degree FEELING jilted. And wanting to “get back” at those that might directly benefit from a policy change.
> 
> “Gotta give back that degree” bro the entire country would just default and lie about it. Literally all of them would. You think companies aren’t going to hire them when literally everyone does it? You proposing wasting tax dollars to “track” that too?
> 
> It’s just debt forgiveness with extra steps. To appease other’s feelings with zero economic benefit.



You assume everyone would forfeit their degree.

This really is no different than unenrolled people who sat in on courses to learn without paying tuition. They didn't get credits or degrees in return. And some of them still do the assignments and ask for them to be graded.


----------



## Mathemagician

18 year old children straight out of high school took out the loans that they were told by the schools administrations and banks that they would need to get an education. And they agreed to whatever the terms and rates were, because that had worked for their parents and grandparents.

A degree had historically included some modest loans so that’s what they did. Not realizing the shift that was about to occur in the US, where wages were going to stagnate for 20 years.

Those people graduated with 20, 30, 40k of debt to attend state schools only to be met with companies absolutely milking the global financial crisis by offering the same wages they had in the 90’s.

The disproportionate cost of education is inherently linked to the fact that wages have stagnated during that time frame.

If nearly impossible to get out from under that debt if one cannot “just live at home with mom and dad for a few years rent and food free” to pay down that debt.

In a country where the median rent is constantly rising at over a thousand a month for a one bedroom before bills, with jobs that pay the same as they did 20 years ago, because 50% of the population is convinced that a rising minimum wage CAUSES price inflation.

A huge amount of untapped economic activity is buried behind the grinding monthly loan payments.

The government does not own companies. They cannot be forced to bring back pensions, and cost of living raises. At most the government can regulate a minimum/living wage.

However the government can get rid of debt freeing up a ton of spending power.

You want to benefit from debt forgiveness? Find something worthwhile to sell all these people who now have hundreds of dollars a month to spend, and move the money from their pocket and into yours.

Restaurants (eating out more) and the trades would be some of the first sectors to benefit as well as these people rush to purchase/fix up homes and finally stop renting. Most millenials are 30+ and want nice floors, new decks, and a yard.

Industries that are overwhelmingly small businesses.

Debt itself is not bad. But educational debt in the US was a bait and switch once degrees stopped leading to “at least a good office job with benefits”.

I myself received a promotion in the last few years and started exactly where the guy promoted in ‘04 did, but that person had 2004 cost of living not what housing and childcare and food costs now. Ended up leaving for a better offer because I can. Huge swaths of the population are hard working fair people and simply don’t have that option so they work for 15+ years ago salaries on debts that would have been manageable if wages had jumped the nearly $20k they should have since the mid 90’s.

Economics is boring, and long, and interlinked. It’s not a snappy Republican/democrat TV sound byte.

Someone making $50mm a year doesn’t notice and extra $2k it gets banked.

Someone making $38k now making $41k will spend every last dollar with local businesses.

It’s not about “being nice” it’s about what makes economic sense. Bad debt helps no one.

That why the federal reserve bought all the bad loans off the banks in 2008.

Banks made tons of shit loans they KNEW sucked. And the entire country was fine with them being bailed out because it would lead to more economic growth in the long run. And ALL the banks were bad actors.

Most students took out loans to improve their lot in life, not something shitty like banks did. And relieving THEIR debt burden would also lead to economic growth for them and their communities where they spend money.

More beer & wings, less debt.


----------



## Jonathan20022

narad said:


> Well I mean, I did address what's at the heart of it, right?
> 
> Just look at the words you use to describe other people: "dawdling", "waste time", "free of charge", "taking the spot". Vs. who? You, because you're going for STEM? A lot of the brightest, and absolute best CS grads I met weren't CS undergrad, and had backgrounds in social sciences and arts. They were obviously hardworking in undergrad, and brought those perspectives into their later work. And if they had stuck it out in their undergrad field, I'm sure they would have brought value to the world there as well. I'm much more concerned with getting the brightest people into the schools that will challenge them, then in trying to get people to pursue STEM or other fields of "value".
> 
> And one of the most important things a university offers is surrounding you with your peers -- people who worked similarly hard, and have similar aptitudes, and similar interests, to really push you. If you're accepted to this university and you don't go because you can't afford it, I could argue you're actually hurting the experience of every student there, depriving them of yourself, so that you could have your spot* filled by some person (who likely by no efforts of their own, at age ~17) is in a better financial spot.
> 
> Like you keep coming back to your choice as the responsible thing. And maybe it was. But it probably wasn't the best thing, and it's sad that money dictated your choices for you.
> 
> *of course the thought of "spots" and acceptance to a university as a very accurate measure of your aptitudes is a very distorted one, but maybe in the abstract it's okay.



Well I use those words because they apply aptly to our current system. Crippling debt is bad, I'd argue if you advised a young adult to pursue their education regardless of the pitfalls of said debt, I'd say that is extremely irresponsible.

For example, you advising me that I should have gone to Brown for the reasons you listed (Depriving their student body of myself and vice versa) doesn't appeal to me enough to maximize my federal grants, scholarships, loans, THEN apply for private loans to complete the cost of my education. I find it extremely hard to believe that if you and I knew each other when I was 17/18 and deciding which institution, that I should have chosen the most expensive and out of reach option.

I also think you're mistaking my choosing to make STEM Degrees cost free, for assuming all else is worthless in comparison. You're also not realizing that STEM is one of the most Ill-represented sectors of education and the workforce in the first place, it would incentivize people who want to get educated in those fields to pursue it regardless of their finances.



Mathemagician said:


> You seem to think I’m attacking you. I’m not. I’m asking you to explain how your hang-up is not boiled down to “I had to pay so everyone should have to”?
> 
> You only pre-approved specific degrees. There is nothing wrong with majoring in something non-stem and then making it work career wise.
> 
> Yeah man, everyone eventually takes the “money” route. I went to college specifically to “get a job” and nothing more, so I majored in finance.
> 
> My first internship? From a professor whose office hours I went to by skipping shifts at that job that meant I would have less money to eat. But that networking helped me get an interview with a firm. My other internship? From joining a club for which I had to skip shifts to attend meetings in order to get in networking to meet a person at the firm I wanted to work at.
> 
> I literally ate less so I could do the requisite networking. It absolutely paid off but it was a gamble. The majority of people I interned with? Private school kids/kids whose families had connections. One of the advisors was buddies with one of the kids dad - THATS what college let’s you do. Meet people who can introduce you to other people.
> 
> I worked since I was 15 and actually took pay cuts by taking those internships.
> 
> I don’t think you’re “mean” or whatever. I’m trying to figure out what your actual pushback is and it seems that our worldviews differ on the minutiae.
> 
> Yours appears to be: “I don’t want to risk person A doing nothing even if it means person B gets ahead in life”.
> 
> My worldview is: “I don’t care if person A does nothing if it means person B gets ahead in life”.
> 
> I’d even be fine with zero interest loans for education - but then we’d still have to bring the inflated cost down and still let them be absolved like the U.K. model.
> I don’t have to create a custom study for you, plenty have been done on how education could be paid for. We’re having a qualitative conversation about ideas, which funny enough is more than our senate has done in ~12 years.



Here's where you're wrong, you're reading my replies and drawing a completely made up conclusion then tagging me with it. I don't think you're attacking me, I think you're making broad generalizations about MY views that are untrue.

I don't give a shit if anyone else gets forgiven or not, it doesn't affect me. If they get forgiven, good on them and I wish them well. If they aren't forgiven then that just means they have to repay something they committed to.

You are way too invested in pointing out the supposed jealousy and selfishness of those who had to pay for their education with nothing to back it.

Also stop characterizing young adults as children, what a stupid tactic to absolve people of their commitments. You're grown enough to consider moving out, and achieve higher education, but you're too young to understand the terms of an agreement that ties you to life changing debt?

Here's where our opinions might cross though,

1) College Education has inflated and is far past overpriced, I'm all for reduced cost or even free options with eligibility requirements.
2) I'm all for selective federal loan forgiveness, because yes, not everyone deserves a get out of jail free card.


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> 2) I'm all for selective federal loan forgiveness, because yes, not everyone deserves a get out of jail free card.



So you can admit that the inflated debt is jail. But not that all people should benefit from debt reduction. 

Economically speaking - why?

You are getting upset when I repeatedly point out in my many long-winded posts that this opinion can be simplified down to those who share you opinion saying “Well it’s just not fair that’s why!”

But economically it makes more sense to have the government retire those loans and let the people go on with their lives while we also work on making college affordable going forward. 

I posted a long response using the fed bailout in ‘08 as an example. 

Only in the US will citizens defend the use of tax dollars spent to bail out corporations one week that will lay off employees the next week anyways, but fight tooth and nail if that taxpayer money instead goes to help actual people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Mathemagician said:


> Only in the US will citizens defend the use of tax dollars spent to bail out corporations one week that will lay off employees the next week anyways, but fight tooth and nail if that taxpayer money instead goes to help actual people.



Someone a few pages back asked for an explanation of America, and this is pretty much it.


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> Well I use those words because they apply aptly to our current system. Crippling debt is bad, I'd argue if you advised a young adult to pursue their education regardless of the pitfalls of said debt, I'd say that is extremely irresponsible.
> 
> For example, you advising me that I should have gone to Brown for the reasons you listed (Depriving their student body of myself and vice versa) doesn't appeal to me enough to maximize my federal grants, scholarships, loans, THEN apply for private loans to complete the cost of my education. I find it extremely hard to believe that if you and I knew each other when I was 17/18 and deciding which institution, that I should have chosen the most expensive and out of reach option.
> 
> I also think you're mistaking my choosing to make STEM Degrees cost free, for assuming all else is worthless in comparison. You're also not realizing that STEM is one of the most Ill-represented sectors of education and the workforce in the first place, it would incentivize people who want to get educated in those fields to pursue it regardless of their finances.



You seem to be taking a personal slant on this. I didn't say you should have gone to Brown. We'll never know which option would have been best for you. But I think that anyone who gets in to Brown should be able to go to Brown without thinking about eating instant noodles for 20 years. In the current climate, there is a very classist lean that takes poor hardworking achievers and then sifts them into schools that are much worse than their qualifications, and that's a real shame. It's a shame for them, as it deprives them of a better learning environment. It's a shame for the faculty, that have to deal with less bright spoiled kids in their places. It's a shame for all the other students there that want similarly smart kids around to challenge them.

Regarding you specifically, at first you said you really wanted to go to Brown because it had this great curriculum, but didn't because of money. Then you said you only applied on a lark to appease your mom. Then you implied it maybe wasn't worth it to go to Brown in retrospect because you know people who went to prestigious schools and you outearn them. So let's not make this about your case, because that's just confusing things. I just think that if you earned a spot and wanted to go, we should create a world in which you would be able to go without fear of massive debt, and that the alternative has negative implications for you and the rest of society.


----------



## c7spheres

The only solution is to just go ahead and forgive all debts of all types, but I'll need to know in advance so I can buy a few things first.


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> Only in the US will citizens defend the use of tax dollars spent to bail out corporations one week that will lay off employees the next week anyways, but fight tooth and nail if that taxpayer money instead goes to help actual people.



I agree with the statement and the silliness of it.

Since I am probably one of the people this is targeted at... Let me repeat. I am completely in favor of education reform, but focusing on the K-12 situation. Make everyone better and not just the minority of adults that got themselves into debt will be better for everyone.

In addition, I think mortgage debt, credit card debt, car loans, insurance, etc. are impacting more of our economy than student debt. So fix problems with taxpayer money that effect everyone before you start giving preferential treatment to a minority that went to college. They aren't better than underprivileged communities that didn't even have an option to consider college. And they definitely should have more options or their degree was a waste of resources.

In other words, college debt is a problem for people with privilege that chose it.

I could be wrong, and I'd be interested if their has been any economic studies on the implications of things like loan forgiveness.


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> In what world is that “result” of removing debt, AND the degree actually better than JUST removing the debt



People shouldn't get things that cost others money for free. It isn't about jealousy. It is about fairness and not creating artificial privilege. If we were arguing about people like Donald Trump's debt being forgiven, people would be saying he has to pay it and supporting the lawsuits against him. I just see a double standard because people want free education. What prevents people in the future from taking large student loans and expecting to never pay it back? Fix the problem forward, not backwards.


----------



## ramses

narad said:


> [ ... ] I just think that if you earned a spot and wanted to go, we should create a world in which you would be able to go without fear of massive debt, and that the alternative has negative implications for you and the rest of society.



It seems to me that both you and @Jonathan20022 agree, but do not realize it.

Perhaps the issue is the continuous conflating — in this thread and in other forums — of two independent problems: forgiving loans vs free education (they are not the same issue, however related).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Not all debt is equal, equating student loan debt to stuff like credit card debt, mortgages, or failed businesses is missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## Mathemagician

Crying “fairness” is for the 27th time: jealousy plain and simple. I’m not saying that you’re at home crying, this isn’t a tv show. I’m saying that at it’s core, under all the layers of mental gymnastics, it’s just sour grapes.

The arguments against loan forgiveness are not based on what would benefit spending growth.


Nearly (1/6) of the US has student loan debt.

All the debt you listed is PRIVATE debt.

Student loans are 92% public debt utilized for an education. Not a truck they couldn’t afford that can be sold off and downgraded to a cheaper car. Boom problem solved.

You keep crying about “fairness”. But the federal reserve used everyone’s tax dollars to bail out banks that willfully made bad loans. They faced no lasting consequences. This was acceptable, but bailing out an entire generation who did not get the “deal” that was promised? Degree = Good job did not materialize for a significant part of the population.

Meanwhile you keep saying “THEY shouldn’t get something for free”. Not every single thing has to be “us versus them”. Can we not be willing to help people who will spend the money right back with us?

There is $1.2 trillion of auto debt in the US.

There is 1.5 trillion in student loan debt. (1/6 of the us population).

It’s not about “preferential” it’s about it being public debt that can be forgiven. Versus owing Chase because you bought a pricy car. The car can be sold tomorrow. Debt gone.

Mortgages aren’t bad debt to begin with. So that is a straw man argument. Want a lower rate? Refinance. Or sell the house. And get something cheaper.

Your “argument” makes zero economic sense, because it compares public debt that is a lifelong burden due to inflated costs, interest rates, lack of bankruptcy and stagnant wage growth.

Every “alternative” is just a way to muddy the discussion by including private debt for physical objects in a discussion about public debt for an education.

The choice to go to college shouldn’t be a “privilege” to begin with. The random broke country kid from the Midwest should have every shot to go to school if they have the grades for it.

Then the discussion about “improving k-12 but fuck those with debt already” implies that only one problem can be tackled at a time. Why can’t the wealthiest country in the world tackle both?

Oh because it’s the same country that doesn’t consider the costs of insurance premiums, copays, and insurance payout caps as a “tax” on their income.

Mental accounting sure is a bitch.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not all debt is equal, equating student loan debt to stuff like credit card debt, mortgages, or failed businesses is missing the forest for the trees.



You are right. They aren't equivalent.

How many families cannot send their kids to school because they cannot afford it due to their own financial situation? College debt is a problem of privilege. People stressing about their minimum wage jobs (plural) and if they can afford to eat regularly... They aren't sitting here wishing that college graduates got their debt paid off.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> How many families cannot send their kids to school because they cannot afford it due to their own financial situation? College debt is a problem of privilege. People being about to get to their minimum wage job and afford to eat regularly aren't sitting here wishing that college graduates got their debt paid off.



What are you talking about?

Read @Mathemagician's post above. Comparing public debt and private debt is asinine.

Chances are, in 2020, that those parents can't send thier kids to school because they themselves are up to thier armpits in non-dischargeable student debt, and the only reason that their kids aren't going to school is because they themselves are terrified of that debt.


----------



## ramses

fantom said:


> People stressing about their minimum wage jobs (plural) and if they can afford to eat regularly... They aren't sitting here wishing that college graduates got their debt paid off.



This is something I worry about. It is also one of the reasons I haven't made my mind on this issue.

Why forgive loans to a privileged 1/3rd of the population (privileged in comparison), when the remaining 2/3rds that did not go to college are not generally doing better in life and have worst problems preventing them from making progress in life.


----------



## Mathemagician

fantom said:


> You are right. They aren't equivalent.
> 
> How many families cannot send their kids to school because they cannot afford it due to their own financial situation? College debt is a problem of privilege. People stressing about their minimum wage jobs (plural) and if they can afford to eat regularly... They aren't sitting here wishing that college graduates got their debt paid off.





ramses said:


> This is something I worry about. It is also one of the reasons I haven't made my mind on this issue.
> 
> Why forgive loans to a privileged 1/3rd of the population, when the remaining 2/3rds that did not go to college are not generally doing better in life and have worst problems to move ahead.



Welcome to a “progressive” platform:

Tie minimum wage to inflation and bump it to the $15-20/hr it should be in 2020. 

$20/hr is $40k per year and that’s literally the minimum anyone should be making. 

Create single payer healthcare for citizens that covers everything. Tax income at whatever 5-8% it need to be to work, and from the employer side take the $8-14k it costs a company per person annually for healthcare and throw that into the pot as well. Employers do not have to pay more “in taxes” and small employers are no longer at a competitive disadvantage versus a larger firm that can offer “better benefits”. Also no more premiums, no more copays, no more caps on payouts because your disease is unfortunately “expensive” to treat. No more justifying costs to fucking “insurance” companies for health. Everyone gets sick. This pandemic proved that anything could do it again. 

Invest in education from k-12 with more funding for teachers comp, after school activities, resources for technology. Remove the voucher, choice and other programs that take tax revenue out of public schools and into private/semi-private hands. All kids rise up together and benefit from taxes, not just the ones who want a religious/private/charter school experience. 

Forgive the asinine debt bubble that has crippled a generation of economic growth. Every fucking article you’ve read about millenials being “lazy” or broke or whatever. I made $38k/yr when I was 18 due to sales bonuses from my job. 

There are employers still “starting” college graduate at less than that because they can. You release a 32-38 year old making sub-$70k/yr from college debt and you’ll see every dollar pumped into your communities businesses because they will spend it all.

So even if YOU don’t have debt, that struggling mom & pop shop which employs 6 other people who need work AND TIPS make money. 

The US is a service economy. Eating out increases and that single mom working as a server makes more the very next busy weekend slinging BEERS AND WINGS. 

Implement a tax on corporate profits and funnel that straight into education and infrastructure improvements. Make college “free” by covering it with taxes and then improve public transit options to connect major cities with the suburbs/regional hubs like a wheel and spoke. Make it so one can live where they want and just be a reasonable drive/uber/bike ride/walk to a station that can commute them to their job/downtown. 

Capital investment in future growth. In business terms we call it “you gotta spend money to make money”. 

America should easily be #1 at ALL of this and be drowning in wings and beer and freedom. 

But people keep whining back to “but how do I get a paycheck out of this today?”

Best time to plant a tree was 40 years ago. Second best time is today. Wings. Beer. Freedom.


----------



## Xaios

Good God. The obsession with "fairness" (air quotes, because the concept as it's being presented here by its proponents is incredibly naive) is exactly in line with the same obsession about pulling up by boot-straps, no social welfare, dog-eat-dog social darwinism bullshit point of view that people who _have_ lots of money want people who don't to keep thinking. It works because it appeals to the American ideal of rugged individualism and a primal urge many people seem to have to both punish those they perceive as lazy and feed the delusion that all that we have we've earned by the sweat of our own brow and nothing else.

Here's the thing: those attitudes might have served people for thousands of years, but they just don't hold water anymore, because we've _found a better way_. Hell, there will come a time when automation is so widespread that there will simply be more people than jobs. What then will you say to people who don't work? They're still just lazy? Attributing nobility to suffering and one's own ability to earn a living in a society that, at a macro level, doesn't really assign wealth based on individual merit but rather what sociological boxes a person checks off is a fool's game.

Also, do you really believe that the people who are currently sucking society's wealth upwards towards the top are doing so purely on merit? Of course not. Yes, these people are likely whip smart and probably hard workers, but they are also far more often than a) _unbelievably_ lucky at the outset, and/or b) willing to engage in the type of criminal behavior that those of us at or near the bottom won't conceive of because they know that the wealth they can accrue from doing so makes them almost untouchable. These are the kinds of people that are perfectly happy to sit and watch as you go at each other's throats over fairness and personal accountability, because chances are they got where they are by sidestepping both.

Do yourself a favor and take the the feeling of moral superiority you get from arguing about individual fairness and accountability, and throw it away. There is simply more to be gained for everyone by recognizing how inherently unfair the system is, and working to change that. And yes, you know what? Some people will exploit that. Society will always have parasites who thrive off the effort of others. But guess what: you and everyone else will still be better off, so in the end, who the fuck cares?


----------



## fantom

ramses said:


> This is something I worry about. It is also one of the reasons I haven't made my mind on this issue.
> 
> Why forgive loans to a privileged 1/3rd of the population (privileged in comparison), when the remaining 2/3rds that did not go to college are not generally doing better in life and have worst problems preventing them from making progress in life.



It is worse than optimizing for 1/3 of people. 30% of undergrads have no debt when they graduate. 25% have debt no more than $20k. 41% are defaulting to for-profit private schools. 88% of students have debt less than $40k in public schools. For-profit, it's half. The problem to me seems people choose to go to expensive schools. We are arguing about maybe 5-10% of younger people getting government assistance.

Just first result. https://www.brookings.edu/policy202...nt-debt-and-whod-benefit-if-it-were-forgiven/



Mathemagician said:


> Tie minimum wage to inflation and bump it to the $15-20/hr it should be in 2020.
> 
> $20/hr is $40k per year and that’s literally the minimum anyone should be making.



Agree. I would also be fine with having different, higher, minimum wage for people with different degree types (if the person discloses their degree when they apply for the job). Increasing wages and putting salary caps on the 1% will go much further to fixing the problem. Student loan forgiveness might as well be called a stimulus check for the middle class.


----------



## Mathemagician

fantom said:


> Agree. I would also be fine with having different, higher, minimum wage for people with different degree types (if the person discloses their degree when they apply for the job). Increasing wages and putting salary caps on the 1% will go much further to fixing the problem. Student loan forgiveness might as well be called a stimulus check for the middle class.



Higher minimum wages kind of already happen via industry. If you have a liberal arts degree and start in investment banking your base salary will be roughly $90k base and $25-50k bonus.

If you get a back office paperwork job you’d get paid $40kish or whatever. The degree doesn’t matter as much as the industry.

However wage ranges for jobs should be mandatory disclosed up from to candidates. (I believe California has something similar).

Student loan forgiveness IS a stimulus for middle class. Yes. Almost. It’s working class stimulus.

Actual Middle class:

Can max out 401k annually

Can afford all medical expenses without a second thought/throwing it on a credit card/personal loan, or postponing it until it gets worse.

Can afford a down payment on a reasonable house & a mortgage.

Not living paycheck to paycheck - a flat tire is not a crisis, it’s just an inconvenience and will be fixed by tomorrow

Can support a hobby without much issue

One reasonable vacation a year

That’s the average “middle class life” people could afford on a single salary in the post-war decades from the 50’s-70’s.

When tax rates approached nearly 90%. See below from the IRS data:




That’s highest marginal tax rates over time. Look at that and line it up with what decades people romanticize with QOL.

Maybe I’m just super patriotic but I think america should be leading at median quality of life.

Welcome to the team. You think you don’t want it, but you do. A huge swath of potential middle class people getting relief.


----------



## narad

Mathemagician said:


> Higher minimum wages kind of already happen via industry. If you have a liberal arts degree and start in investment banking your base salary will be roughly $90k base and $25-50k bonus.
> 
> If you get a back office paperwork job you’d get paid $40kish or whatever. The degree doesn’t matter as much as the industry.
> 
> However wage ranges for jobs should be mandatory disclosed up from to candidates. (I believe California has something similar).
> 
> Student loan forgiveness IS a stimulus for middle class. Yes. Almost. It’s working class stimulus.
> 
> Actual Middle class:
> 
> Can max out 401k annually
> 
> Can afford all medical expenses without a second thought/throwing it on a credit card/personal loan, or postponing it until it gets worse.
> 
> Can afford a down payment on a reasonable house & a mortgage.
> 
> Not living paycheck to paycheck - a flat tire is not a crisis, it’s just an inconvenience and will be fixed by tomorrow
> 
> Can support a hobby without much issue
> 
> One reasonable vacation a year
> 
> That’s the average “middle class life” people could afford on a single salary in the post-war decades from the 50’s-70’s.
> 
> When tax rates approached nearly 90%. See below from the IRS data:
> 
> View attachment 87282
> 
> 
> That’s highest marginal tax rates over time. Look at that and line it up with what decades people romanticize with QOL.
> 
> Maybe I’m just super patriotic but I think america should be leading at median quality of life.
> 
> Welcome to the team. You think you don’t want it, but you do. A huge swath of potential middle class people getting relief.



In the 1950s and 60s the economy must have suffered because such a high top marginal tax bracket would not encourage "job creators".


----------



## Jonathan20022

Mathemagician said:


> So you can admit that the inflated debt is jail. But not that all people should benefit from debt reduction.
> 
> Economically speaking - why?
> 
> You are getting upset when I repeatedly point out in my many long-winded posts that this opinion can be simplified down to those who share you opinion saying “Well it’s just not fair that’s why!”
> 
> But economically it makes more sense to have the government retire those loans and let the people go on with their lives while we also work on making college affordable going forward.
> 
> I posted a long response using the fed bailout in ‘08 as an example.
> 
> Only in the US will citizens defend the use of tax dollars spent to bail out corporations one week that will lay off employees the next week anyways, but fight tooth and nail if that taxpayer money instead goes to help actual people.



I don't care if it's fair or not, my neighbor's debt is their own problem and them having it forgiven or not has a net zero immediate effect on my personal wellbeing. I'm not salty that people might have their debt wiped, if it happens then they are better for it and I am happy for them. If the debt isn't wiped, then back to square one they are liable to their commitments.

Do you think those who can afford to pay their loans off and are better off than 90% of the US Population should have their debt forgiven when they are fully capable and set up to pay their loans off? It's SO weird to me that you keep attributing it to jealousy, when I'm from the beginning for debt forgiveness with eligibility requirements laid out.

I don't think well off family A should be able to send their kids to higher education, fund it solely via tax payer dollars and get it wiped slate free. I'm jealous of them for being able to take advantage of the system in the example outlined, because that is simply cheating the system. Wiping federal education loans gives people of all walks of life an easy way out.

Those who NEED it will benefit from it, and I can agree that a reasonable number of people need that assistance. I don't think every person with student loans needs to be bailed out.



narad said:


> You seem to be taking a personal slant on this. I didn't say you should have gone to Brown. We'll never know which option would have been best for you. But I think that anyone who gets in to Brown should be able to go to Brown without thinking about eating instant noodles for 20 years. In the current climate, there is a very classist lean that takes poor hardworking achievers and then sifts them into schools that are much worse than their qualifications, and that's a real shame. It's a shame for them, as it deprives them of a better learning environment. It's a shame for the faculty, that have to deal with less bright spoiled kids in their places. It's a shame for all the other students there that want similarly smart kids around to challenge them.
> 
> Regarding you specifically, at first you said you really wanted to go to Brown because it had this great curriculum, but didn't because of money. Then you said you only applied on a lark to appease your mom. Then you implied it maybe wasn't worth it to go to Brown in retrospect because you know people who went to prestigious schools and you outearn them. So let's not make this about your case, because that's just confusing things. I just think that if you earned a spot and wanted to go, we should create a world in which you would be able to go without fear of massive debt, and that the alternative has negative implications for you and the rest of society.



I'm honestly not dude, the only time I've taken anything personally is when I get painted as some jealous prick who doesn't want to help others who are actually in need.

We also don't have to continue with my example. But to clarify, it isn't uncommon to look for places that offer great programs, find out their associated cost then drop the idea once you realize you can't afford it. My mother wanting me to apply anyway to see if I would have even made it doesn't put a wedge in my story. Realizing that the education at Brown wouldn't have necessarily earned me anymore merit or financial gain in the end is a perfectly apt realization to have post-graduation as well.

Once again, I'm all for a massive reduction in the cost of education and for more reasonable options for those who can't afford it to go where they are capable of, and where they want it to. Like Ramses said, we don't disagree with our core arguments, we see the college experience differently and disagree on how to make it reach a larger less privileged audience.



fantom said:


> People shouldn't get things that cost others money for free. It isn't about jealousy. It is about fairness and not creating artificial privilege. If we were arguing about people like Donald Trump's debt being forgiven, people would be saying he has to pay it and supporting the lawsuits against him. I just see a double standard because people want free education. What prevents people in the future from taking large student loans and expecting to never pay it back? Fix the problem forward, not backwards.



Rich people already get bail outs and massive pardons.



Mathemagician said:


> Crying “fairness” is for the 27th time: jealousy plain and simple. I’m not saying that you’re at home crying, this isn’t a tv show. I’m saying that at it’s core, under all the layers of mental gymnastics, it’s just sour grapes.
> 
> The arguments against loan forgiveness are not based on what would benefit spending growth.
> 
> 
> Nearly (1/6) of the US has student loan debt.
> 
> All the debt you listed is PRIVATE debt.
> 
> Student loans are 92% public debt utilized for an education. Not a truck they couldn’t afford that can be sold off and downgraded to a cheaper car. Boom problem solved.
> 
> You keep crying about “fairness”. But the federal reserve used everyone’s tax dollars to bail out banks that willfully made bad loans. They faced no lasting consequences. This was acceptable, but bailing out an entire generation who did not get the “deal” that was promised? Degree = Good job did not materialize for a significant part of the population.
> 
> Meanwhile you keep saying “THEY shouldn’t get something for free”. Not every single thing has to be “us versus them”. Can we not be willing to help people who will spend the money right back with us?
> 
> There is $1.2 trillion of auto debt in the US.
> 
> There is 1.5 trillion in student loan debt. (1/6 of the us population).
> 
> It’s not about “preferential” it’s about it being public debt that can be forgiven. Versus owing Chase because you bought a pricy car. The car can be sold tomorrow. Debt gone.
> 
> Mortgages aren’t bad debt to begin with. So that is a straw man argument. Want a lower rate? Refinance. Or sell the house. And get something cheaper.
> 
> Your “argument” makes zero economic sense, because it compares public debt that is a lifelong burden due to inflated costs, interest rates, lack of bankruptcy and stagnant wage growth.
> 
> Every “alternative” is just a way to muddy the discussion by including private debt for physical objects in a discussion about public debt for an education.
> 
> The choice to go to college shouldn’t be a “privilege” to begin with. The random broke country kid from the Midwest should have every shot to go to school if they have the grades for it.
> 
> Then the discussion about “improving k-12 but fuck those with debt already” implies that only one problem can be tackled at a time. Why can’t the wealthiest country in the world tackle both?
> 
> Oh because it’s the same country that doesn’t consider the costs of insurance premiums, copays, and insurance payout caps as a “tax” on their income.
> 
> Mental accounting sure is a bitch.



You realize that educational debt in the first place barely effects the average American right?

https://www.cnbc.com/select/average-american-debt-by-age/

*Gen Z (ages 18 to 23): *$9,593
*Millennials (ages 24 to 39): *$78,396
*Gen X (ages 40 to 55): *$135,841
*Baby boomers (ages 56 to 74): *$96,984
*Silent generation (ages 75 and above): *$40,925
*Student loans: *Gen X have the highest amount of student loan debt, an average of $39,981.

A whopping 29% of Gen X debt is dedicated to Student Loans, with those fantastic interest rates they got back in the day I'd leave those for last too. You pretend that giving people in poverty their $200 minimum payment back a month would make a difference when they're already under from debt elsewhere.

Wages aren't high enough, rent and commodities are increasingly more expensive, and the country is in an economic crisis. Bumping the average American's OVERALL balance by eliminating a LOW interest rate federal loan, and freeing some of their already low living income does nothing for them. I imagine for someone buried in debt makes people feel some slight mental relief before they realize they're still under when they look at their Credit Karma account.

It's also super tone deaf to not realize that higher levels of education is inherently a privilege. It's a privilege that I could even apply to a college 200k more expensive than I could afford, and still go to one that ended up costing me 50k. And it's a privilege that allowed me to be in the place I am today, there are countless living problems that don't even allow people to be on the roadmap to a college education in the first place.

You're advocating to help people in the first place who are at a MASSIVE advantage in life in the first place. Parts of this group, those with educational debt IMO don't deserve to have their commitments wiped right off the plate and I'd argue you do too if you considered which demographics would be included in your umbrella.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> has a net zero immediate effect on my personal wellbeing



Then why be so against it? 

That's the selfish American attitude that folks elsewhere tend not to understand. In most places it's "this doesn't really concern me, so have at it" while here it's "this doesn't really concern me, but fuck them." 

We're the richest nation on the planet. We have plenty of resources to better the lives of just about everyone, but choose not to because we've been brainwashed into hating our neighbor over silly shit like this. 

Again, for the folks in the back, we're the only country this stupid about education.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> Then why be so against it?
> 
> That's the selfish American attitude that folks elsewhere tend not to understand. In most places it's "this doesn't really concern me, so have at it" while here it's "this doesn't really concern me, but fuck them."
> 
> We're the richest nation on the planet. We have plenty of resources to better the lives of just about everyone, but choose not to because we've been brainwashed into hating our neighbor over silly shit like this.
> 
> Again, for the folks in the back, we're the only country this stupid about education.



In earnest, where are you getting the implication that I am against it?

Is it all or nothing with this talking point, or what?



> I'm not salty that people might have their debt wiped, if it happens then they are better for it and I am happy for them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> Is it all or nothing with this talking point, or what?



Yeah, pretty much.

I have no problem with some privileged folks benefiting from a system that allows access to better, cheaper, debt free education if it means that will be available for everyone. The edge cases don't really bother me.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, pretty much.
> 
> I have no problem with some privileged folks benefiting from a system that allows access to better, cheaper, debt free education if it means that will be available for everyone. The edge cases don't really bother me.



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/#:~:text=The highest-income 40 percent,10 percent of the payments.

Right, "some" and "edge cases".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/09/who-owes-the-most-in-student-loans-new-data-from-the-fed/#:~:text=The highest-income 40 percent,10 percent of the payments.
> 
> Right, "some" and "edge cases".



I don't tend to villify the middle to upper-middle class as equal to some concept of ultra privileged super rich folks. So no, a household making $106k a year getting some form of debt relief doesn't bother me, especially if it's put back into the economy.


----------



## diagrammatiks

You’re also pretty much slightly above poverty in some places with that income and a nuclear family.


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> Reread my first post. University is a business model. Capitalism is taking advantage of people. I said it needs reform.
> 
> What I am saying has nothing to do with how screwed up the system is. It is that you cannot enter an agreement to borrow money with no collateral then argue that you shouldn't owe the money years later. it is about fiscal responsibility of the individual.
> 
> Yes, the government and education system is ridiculous. Yes, we should fix it. It doesn't change the fact that people are knowingly entering the agreement. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is better for the country of education is free. I also said the government should not allow people to take loans that cannot be repaid. Stop the problem sooner. Again, not about privilege, about stopping the problem sooner than years of interest down the drain.
> 
> As I said, if we want to fix the education system, start with K-12. That will impact considerably more people than university.



But you’re missing my point which is that the whole process shouldn’t be “for profit” except if you’re choosing private schools like Harvard. But why are state schools for profit? Why are federal student loans for profit? The whole point is an educated citizenry is a better citizenry. More income (to pay more taxes), better educated so as not to believe in things like fundamentalism and chemtrails, and more able to positively contribute to the overall zeitgeist. It’s like arguing for universal medical care. A healthy citizenry is better for everyone not just the individual. Which is why I hate libertarian a-holes. Libertarianism is the ultimate Ayn Rand all about me BS. What’s best for me is best for all. F that. (*Not backed by science)




Drew said:


> Chiming in because I got my facts wrong - the majority of US student debt actually IS publicly held, roughly 92% of it is held by the US Department of Education:
> 
> https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt#:~:text=loan affordability calculator-,Total private student loan debt,student loan debt: $131.81 billion.
> 
> That's roughly $1.5 trillion dollars. About 8% is privately held. The US government's options with respect to that debt are a little narrower - they could engage in some sort of tender offer to buy it off private lenders and then retire it, but they couldn't compel lenders to sell. But, with the majority publicly held, it does mean that at least _theoretically_ the Federal Government could choose to write this debt off.
> 
> A $1.5 trillion dollar price tag is a little eye-watering, especially so soon after a $2.2 trillion dollar pandemic stimulus bill, but there's no denying the sudden increase in spending power of, well, roughly a third of Americans, would have a strong stimulative effect on consumer demand. Of course, it wouldn't solve the problem of _future_ student debt, so it'd only be the first half of the puzzle.
> 
> 
> I don't know what your experience was in college, but with mine, it's not like I showed up, wrote a check, and drank beer and banged sorority chicks for four years, then left with a diploma. I mean, I did that _too_... But I also worked my ass off while I was there. It was a great experience, I learned a tremendous amount, both academically and about who I was and about independence and responsibility and navigating the world... but it definitely wasn't a four year vacation - it was rewarding in the same way a lot of the other very hard things I've done in life were.
> 
> I went to a very prestigious private school, don't owe a dime today, and if we do find a way to forgive student debt and make it free/cheap for future students, I'm not going to feel gipped or somehow upset that I was "responsible" and they don't have to be. I may not benefit from a one-time debt reduction, but I sure as shit will benefit from the economic strength that will follow.



^ this is what I’m getting at.




Mathemagician said:


> So you can admit that the inflated debt is jail. But not that all people should benefit from debt reduction.
> 
> Economically speaking - why?
> 
> You are getting upset when I repeatedly point out in my many long-winded posts that this opinion can be simplified down to those who share you opinion saying “Well it’s just not fair that’s why!”
> 
> But economically it makes more sense to have the government retire those loans and let the people go on with their lives while we also work on making college affordable going forward.
> 
> I posted a long response using the fed bailout in ‘08 as an example.
> 
> Only in the US will citizens defend the use of tax dollars spent to bail out corporations one week that will lay off employees the next week anyways, but fight tooth and nail if that taxpayer money instead goes to help actual people.



^ this a thousand times over. Why is it that people believe in the magical unicorn (and debunked) theory of trickle down economics but yet think educating their citizenry (or ensuring their health as a right) is a fuck you proposition?


----------



## lurè

USMarine75 said:


> A healthy citizenry is better for everyone not just the individual. Which is why I hate libertarian a-holes. Libertarianism is the ultimate Ayn Rand all about me BS. What’s best for me is best for all. F that. (*Not backed by science)



I think in US is more a right-libertarianism. The biggest problem I have with that is that is often linked to meritocracy wich is kinda bullshit.

If a person, because of his financial status, has not the possibility to have access to education, health and everything required to freely express himself in a society, than it's not a matter of merit.

Setting up economical barriers to every aspect of people lifes and calling "meritocracy" those who can afford to overcome them is my biggest worry about Libertarianism.


----------



## StevenC

I'm not sure I understand the "why should they get something for free that others have paid for" slant when the rest of the developed world gets it for free. The question is "why should we pay for something everyone else gets for free", as with most problems in America.


----------



## Mathemagician

From the article high earners are defined as those earning more than $74k/yr.

Bro in 2020, $80k per person is the BOTTOM RUNG to enter “middle class”, in second and third tier cities.

Quote from article:
“The highest-income 40 percent of households (those with incomes above $74,000) owe almost 60 percent of the outstanding education debt and make almost three-quarters of the payments. The lowest-income 40 percent of households hold just under 20 percent of the outstanding debt and make only 10 percent of the payments. It should be no surprise that higher-income households owe more student debt than others.”

We’re talking about the same thing. I’m just saying $75k/yr is not impressive, while you’re saying that it IS impressive.

That’s not typically attainable until one’s 30’s outside of certain industries. Not everyone is going to be a programmer making $150k at 22, and those that are pay $4k+ monthly for rent.

Doctors can easily make $150k-200k after their residency ends. They’ll also be in their mid 30’s with $300k+ in loans and a decade+ behind their peers in working years and retirement savings.

$200k isn’t “richy rich”. It’s just upper middle class. That with a family of 4 is just slightly nicer cars and vacations, maybe not even if the other partner is a house spouse.

I don’t mind doctors getting a break on that shit either. It’s not an easy profession to attain and it should be rewarded.

Also the highest personal marginal tax rate shouldn’t slap people until like $600k/yr and needs to be updated.

At the end of the day I don’t care if well off people get a break as long as the the less well off get a break too. All too often it’s only the top getting a break.

You say you don’t care but you do care. It rustles your jimmies that someone else gets a break.

We’re not even arguing at this point, and I’m not even sure we disagree, you’re just being purposefully picky about it. You state that you would waste time and energy attaching strings to something that doesn’t need strings attached.

If we’re discussing making college free going forward, we have to let loose everyone currently tied down too. It’s the MJ jail example again.

Most people earning sub-$1mm/yr earn W-2 income. Which is taxed at the highest marginal tax rates. I am ok with removing the debt burden of education that allowed them to contribute so much in taxes for everything.

Middle class ($70-125k) and Upper middle class ($125k-250k) families work hard too, and should not be demonized. It’s literally the American dream held out to the world.

Think of all the extra beer, wings, and dumb kick knacks they would spend money on. Now open a hipster avocado toast/craft beer food cart and make that $$$bread baby. 

Meanwhile those making $30-50k a year and who will likely never really top that adjusted for inflation get a real opportunity to begin saving for a small house/apartment to finally get on the property ladder and begin “getting ahead” in life.

Student loan debts are one part of a bigger problem, but the idea that America as a country is too stupid/poor to tackle multiple problems is just nuts to me.

Edit: I swear it doesn’t feel like a lot when I’m typing. Isn’t this forum about guitars or something?


----------



## Sumsar

^ Usually it doesn't look that bad when you type on PC, but then later you scrool through it on your phone and realize you have written up a fairly impressive wall of text, and yes this is a guitar forum so:

Argument:
If you remove peoples student debt in the US they will have more money for buying guitars and gear, so that industri will grow, with more and cheaper products (mass manufactoring and mass import) for all of us suckers that spend way to much time complaining about why there is not a production guitar with the right wood / pickup combination and right slant / scale length of the fanned frets (even if most of us have never tried fanned fret). So sheeple, there is a solution for us here that you are not seeing!


----------



## budda

@Jonathan20022 if you dont think $200/mo is a lot to anyone making sub $35k/yr, you're exposing your ignorance.


----------



## fantom

USMarine75 said:


> But you’re missing my point which is that the whole process shouldn’t be “for profit” except if you’re choosing private schools like Harvard. But why are state schools for profit? Why are federal student loans for profit? The whole point is an educated citizenry is a better citizenry. More income (to pay more taxes), better educated so as not to believe in things like fundamentalism and chemtrails, and more able to positively contribute to the overall zeitgeist. It’s like arguing for universal medical care. A healthy citizenry is better for everyone not just the individual. Which is why I hate libertarian a-holes. Libertarianism is the ultimate Ayn Rand all about me BS. What’s best for me is best for all. F that. (*Not backed by science)



You have to choose to go to a for profit or private school over a public one. See my prior post (below). The data doesn't really back what you are saying. The average undergraduate public state university, 30% have no debt, 25% have less than $20k debt. Another 33% have $20k-40k. And 12% are over $40k. For majority of people with student debt from a public school, the amount should be manageable if you have a salary job with a bachelor's degree. That upper 12% should have some options that are case by case. But wholesale removing debts seems silly given that information. I just hope you aren't trying to generalize your personal situation.

Ya you are right that people who can't pay off their debts are excellent for the economy, because they by definition spend money they don't have.

And yes, I have no sympathy for people who chose for profit, private, or graduate school. I personally didn't have that option because I couldn't afford a "better" school than the one near where I grew up. I chose to go to the one that made financial sense despite offers from prestigious (and out of state) schools. I'd also argue that the in state public school was more than sufficient.





fantom said:


> It is worse than optimizing for 1/3 of people. 30% of undergrads have no debt when they graduate. 25% have debt no more than $20k. 41% are defaulting to for-profit private schools. 88% of students have debt less than $40k in public schools. For-profit, it's half. The problem to me seems people choose to go to expensive schools. We are arguing about maybe 5-10% of younger people getting government assistance.
> 
> Just first result. https://www.brookings.edu/policy202...nt-debt-and-whod-benefit-if-it-were-forgiven/


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> And yes, I have no sympathy for people who chose for profit, private, or graduate school. I personally didn't have that option because I couldn't afford a "better" school than the one near where I grew up. I chose to go to the one that made financial sense despite offers from prestigious (and out of state) schools. I'd also argue that the in state public school was more than sufficient.



If you went to a state public school that was "more than sufficient", then you must live in a state with one of the better ones. That's far from the case everywhere.


----------



## fantom

Rough count, there are about 23 states with higher ranked public schools than the one I went to. It was around the 80-125 range on most sites. I can buy that some states are worse, but I don't buy that I was in a more privileged state with better than average options.


----------



## Jonathan20022

budda said:


> @Jonathan20022 if you dont think $200/mo is a lot to anyone making sub $35k/yr, you're exposing your ignorance.



Good one.

It's incredibly annoying to have a discussion when people pull these gotchas and respond to a single point and completely miss the mark to top it off. I said helping people with a $200 minimum payment on a low interest rate student loan, when they are already under with other forms of debt does nothing for that individual. How you took that as, "You don't think 200 is a lot to someone who makes 35k" is beyond me but it wouldn't be the first time you took a large post concerning a nuanced topic and isolated it like this. 

Econ 101, do you understand how interest rates work? Do you not realize that Student Loans are one of the least detrimental form of loans you can take out for yourself? No this doesn't mean I'm against *forgiving student loans,* hard to believe I have to spell that out anymore clearly than I have. But the goal is to help people, not virtue signal and feign ignorance.


----------



## Lemonbaby

Very interesting to read Americans discussing this. Very unique approach


diagrammatiks said:


> well...taxes pay for things. taxes is taking your hard earned money and giving it to someone else.
> 
> that someone else is probably not straight and white.
> 
> so fuck them.
> 
> Murica.
> 
> or
> 
> America is rugged individualists who (not really ever) pulled them selves up by their own (nope) bootstraps.
> 
> So if you ain't pulled yourself up you should just die.
> 
> Murcia.


I see. So more or less a confirmation of the prejudices everyone outside of the US has. What's a "Murica"?


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Lemonbaby said:


> Very interesting to read Americans discussing this. Very unique approach
> 
> I see. So more or less a confirmation of the prejudices everyone outside of the US has. What's a "Murica"?


he was being facetious and making fun of how some ignorant hillbillies in this country act...
Murica is a shortened slang version of America, and started as a way to make fun of overly patriotic nationalistic mouthbreathers that barely graduated high school. Sadly the mouthbreathers don't understand satire or irony so they've co-opted it as a legit rallying cry.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Lemonbaby said:


> Very interesting to read Americans discussing this. Very unique approach
> 
> I see. So more or less a confirmation of the prejudices everyone outside of the US has. What's a "Murica"?



Ya it's just a funny name for America. 

The problem really is that America is super individualistic. Live free or die. So any time you have a collective action problem it becomes a big mess. Individualism by itself isn't bad...but sometimes it makes solving things hard.

The other problem is that, and you can see it even in this thread...even most center leaning people can agree that there's a lot of structural issues that need to be resolved...but no one will agree that you should put a band-aid on the wound while you figure shit out.


----------



## Jonathan20022

https://nypost.com/2020/11/20/canceling-student-loan-debt-makes-working-class-subsidize-elites/

"Using the pandemic as an excuse to reward workers who are far less likely to lose their jobs and more likely to find new employment if they do, seems awfully self-serving"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> https://nypost.com/2020/11/20/canceling-student-loan-debt-makes-working-class-subsidize-elites/
> 
> "Using the pandemic as an excuse to reward workers who are far less likely to lose their jobs and more likely to find new employment if they do, seems awfully self-serving"



What a horseshit article. Throwing these bad faith arguments around isn't helping folks think you're not just bitter about all this. 

Framing this as working class vs. elites is asinine, because while the most who will benefit could be argued to be in the least financial peril (again, argued, but definitely not confirmed), those who will be greatest impacted individually are working class, those whose debt is larger relative to income short/mid term. 

Pro Tip: if an article refers to folks as "the elite" without irony it probably has an axe to grind, which Jonah Goldberg always has if means spreading his brand of conservative libertarianism by throwing up strawmen and arguing in bad faith.


----------



## Mathemagician

So far the viewpoint that it is somehow “elitist” to offer aid for public debt appears to have only focused on trying to “win” a competition with a niche narrative with zero support stemming from a misplaced sense of fairness.

From the data I’ve seen this isn’t about trying to “prove” a side. Educated countries have higher standards of living. My goal is education people genuinely “on the fence” on the issue. Not trying to “win” on the internet.

The facts already exist and 45 million Americans would experience some form of relief. And the remainder would benefit from their increased spending.

Always curious why corporate “bailouts” NEVER come under the same scrutiny.

In March 2020 we bailed out industries like cruise lines which don’t pay US taxes, and airlines which wasted every damn dollar they earned by buying back their own stock, and many other industries. For those unaware, a company’s STOCK value is equal to= the total value of the firm divided by the number of shares available. Buying back shares reduces the # available, so the company is worth the same but the denominator is smaller thereby increasing stock’s price. Most executives have a hefty portion of their compensation in stock grants. So by wasting the companies money buying back stock instead of reinvesting it they are artificially paying themselves more.

All of this was branded as an effort “to prevent job loss”.

The companies all laid people off anyways after the fact all year.

Then we have bailouts in the form of “Job Creating Tax Cuts”:

After the 2017 tax cuts, which AT&T promised would lead to higher wages for employees they pocketed the $42 BILLION (with a B) in savings INSTEAD:

1) Laid off some 28,000 workers
2) Dragged their feet for years on negotiations with employees to actually raise wages
3) Kicked and screamed because they could not just steal the money out the back end by forcing employees to pay more for health benefits (thereby allowing the company to pay less to the providers).

Heres just one article, they get to the juicy bits in the first paragraphs.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-t-got-a-giant-tax-cut-but-has-laid-off-thousands-union-says/


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> What a horseshit article. Throwing these bad faith arguments around isn't helping folks think you're not just bitter about all this.
> 
> Framing this as working class vs. elites is asinine, because while the most who will benefit could be argued to be in the least financial peril (again, argued, but definitely not confirmed), those who will be greatest impacted individually are working class, those whose debt is larger relative to income short/mid term.
> 
> Pro Tip: if an article refers to folks as "the elite" without irony it probably has an axe to grind, which Jonah Goldberg always has if means spreading his brand of conservative libertarianism by throwing up strawmen and arguing in bad faith.



Meh, you didn't like it when I showed you data that supports middle class/upper class Americans owning a majority of student debt, and you brushed it aside because it doesn't matter to you. 

It's 2020, we can means test and help only parties that qualify and need the assistance. And we can choose to actually help the percentage of the lower/working/middle actively holding student loans instead of family of 5 in the suburbs who can afford to pay their loans back.

What's your opposition to the above sentiment? Do you actually care about helping those impaired by their student loans, or do you want to give wealthy families back some of their monthly luxury spending money to pad it even further?



Mathemagician said:


> So far the viewpoint that it is somehow “elitist” to offer aid for public debt appears to have only focused on trying to “win” a competition with a niche narrative with zero support stemming from a misplaced sense of fairness.
> 
> From the data I’ve seen this isn’t about trying to “prove” a side. Educated countries have higher standards of living. My goal is education people genuinely “on the fence” on the issue. Not trying to “win” on the internet.
> 
> The facts already exist and 45 million Americans would experience some form of relief. And the remainder would benefit from their increased spending.
> 
> Always curious why corporate “bailouts” NEVER come under the same scrutiny.
> 
> In March 2020 we bailed out industries like cruise lines which don’t pay US taxes, and airlines which wasted every damn dollar they earned by buying back their own stock, and many other industries. For those unaware, a company’s STOCK value is equal to= the total value of the firm divided by the number of shares available. Buying back shares reduces the # available, so the company is worth the same but the denominator is smaller thereby increasing stock’s price. Most executives have a hefty portion of their compensation in stock grants. So by wasting the companies money buying back stock instead of reinvesting it they are artificially paying themselves more.
> 
> All of this was branded as an effort “to prevent job loss”.
> 
> The companies all laid people off anyways after the fact all year.
> 
> Then we have bailouts in the form of “Job Creating Tax Cuts”:
> 
> After the 2017 tax cuts, which AT&T promised would lead to higher wages for employees they pocketed the $42 BILLION (with a B) in savings INSTEAD:
> 
> 1) Laid off some 28,000 workers
> 2) Dragged their feet for years on negotiations with employees to actually raise wages
> 3) Kicked and screamed because they could not just steal the money out the back end by forcing employees to pay more for health benefits (thereby allowing the company to pay less to the providers).
> 
> Heres just one article, they get to the juicy bits in the first paragraphs.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-t-got-a-giant-tax-cut-but-has-laid-off-thousands-union-says/



Yeah AT&T is trash, what else is new? (Huge discussion pivot, btw)

So bailouts are bad because some businesses take advantage of them? Or should we follow up and revoke/fine businesses who pull of stunts like that?


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> Meh, you didn't like it when I showed you data that supports middle class/upper class Americans owning a majority of student debt, and you brushed it aside because it doesn't matter to you.
> 
> It's 2020, we can means test and help only parties that qualify and need the assistance. And we can choose to actually help the percentage of the lower/working/middle actively holding student loans instead of family of 5 in the suburbs who can afford to pay their loans back.
> 
> What's your opposition to the above sentiment? Do you actually care about helping those impaired by their student loans, or do you want to give wealthy families back some of their monthly luxury spending money to pad it even further?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah AT&T is trash, what else is new? (Huge discussion pivot, btw)
> 
> So bailouts are bad because some businesses take advantage of them? Or should we follow up and revoke/fine businesses who pull of stunts like that?



Bro. You have now dug in your heels at arguing in desperate attempt to reconcile your misunderstanding of the entire point of student loans relief-

The entire point is INTENDED to be middle class relief. And likely upper middle class.

Both of which have been dwindling in the United States for over two decades.

Everyone went to college to get “good jobs” because there were no more good factory jobs. Because there were no good places to “work your way up” without a degree to unlock the gatekeepers.

You have essentially argued that middle class relief should not benefit the middle class.

I quoted that terrible article back to you. Which you are clearly willfully ignoring.

$74k per year is just barely middle class. And those people carry the bulk of student loan debts. Meaning that the middle class/upper middle class earners pay proportionally more dollars each month to the US government.

The relief is to allow that money to be out to use on the economy, instead of disappearing into a black hole.

You discuss “means testing” the same way an asshole discusses “drug testing for food stamps”. People have kids and the kids gotta eat regardless of if mommy is a junkie.

Just because someone has a decent job doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve debt relief.

You are looking at the world as though that person will suddenly “get ahead of you” by having their debt forgiven.

You are not COMPETING with the person making $100k per year. You are competing with the US Government for their MONEY. Which is otherwise tied up doing nothing for anyone.

Admit that once again the only negative point you can think of is that you are in absolute simplest terms jealous of middle class debt relief actually benefitting middle class people.

You frame it as though you want to “help the poor”. But it boils down to you fundamentally wanting to “put others in their place” in an attempt to protect what you see as an encroachment on your own success.

Buddy, it’s freeing up anywhere from $1.2k to $12k/yr ($100/mo vs. $1k/mo) for middle & upper middle class earners most of whose have kids and a mortgage. You really think they’re going to buy a helicopter before you? No they’re going to repair their home and buy diapers.

1/6 of the country has their earnings artificially deflated by overinflated tuition expenses and thus loans, and you want to fucking “means test” instead of racking in the windfall of increased economic activity.

You have a 401k right? When they spend that money companies earn more and stocks go up. Money printer go brrrrr.

But I can negotiate. If someone is willing to free up all student loan debts for anyone making sub $75k point blank I’m for it. Because when those results come in it’s going to be a mad dash to free up the capital from the middle class earners to be able generate tax revenue.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Mathemagician said:


> Bro. You have now dig in your heels at arguing in desperate attempt to reconcile your misunderstanding of the entire point of student loans relief-
> 
> The entire point is INTENDED to be middle class relief. And likely upper middle class.
> 
> Both of which have been dwindling in the United States for over two decades.
> 
> Everyone went to college to get “good jobs” because there were no more good factory jobs. Because there were no good places to “work your way up” without a degree to unlock the gatekeepers.
> 
> You have essentially argued that middle class relief should not benefit the middle class.
> 
> I quoted that terrible article back to you. Which you are clearly willfully ignoring.
> 
> $74k per year is just barely middle class. And those people carry the bulk of student loan debts. Meaning that the middle class/upper middle class earners pay proportionally more dollars each month to the US government.
> 
> The relief is to allow that money to be out to use on the economy, instead of disappearing into a black hole.
> 
> You discuss “means testing” the same way an asshole discusses “drug testing for food stamps”. People have kids and the kids gotta eat regardless of if mommy is a junkie.
> 
> Just because someone has a decent job doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve debt relief.
> 
> You are looking at the world as though that person will suddenly “get ahead of you” by having their debt forgiven.
> 
> You are not COMPETING with the person making $100k per year. You are competing with the US Government for their MONEY. Which is otherwise tied up doing nothing for anyone.
> 
> Admit that once again the only negative point you can think of is that you are in absolute simplest terms jealous of middle class debt relief actually benefitting middle class people.
> 
> You frame it as though you want to “help the poor”. But it boils down to you fundamentally wanting to “put others in their place” in an attempt to protect what you see as an encroachment on your own success.
> 
> Buddy, it’s freeing up anywhere from $6k to $12k/yr for middle & upper middle class earners most of whose have kids and a mortgage. You really think they’re going to buy a helicopter before you? No they’re going to repair their home and buy diapers.
> 
> 1/6 of the country has their earnings artificially deflated by overinflated tuition expenses and thus loans, and you want to fucking “means test” instead of racking in the windfall of increased economic activity.
> 
> You have a 401k right? When they spend that money companies earn more and stocks go up. Money printer go brrrrr.



The obsession with painting others as jealous spiteful people is getting old. I have some of my student loans left, and it would benefit me to have that debt wiped  I just don't think if you are in a position to pay back your commitments, that you should have those commitments cleared.

You are also constantly flipping your focus. A few pages back it was the poor midwestern kid who can't go to school without crippling debt, then it was making sure the people who aren't better off get relief (even if the opposite group gets it as well).



> At the end of the day I don’t care if well off people get a break as long as the the less well off get a break too. All too often it’s only the top getting a break.



And now it's about how diapers and home repairs, how many poor people own a fucking house dude? 

We have other problems to cater to, like healthcare. And at the rate of progress this country travels at I'd like to focus on the people who actually need a hand


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> The obsession with painting others as jealous spiteful people is getting old. I have some of my student loans left, and it would benefit me to have that debt wiped  I just don't think if you are in a position to pay back your commitments, that you should have those commitments cleared.
> 
> You are also constantly flipping your focus. A few pages back it was the poor midwestern kid who can't go to school without crippling debt, then it was making sure the people who aren't better off get relief (even if the opposite group gets it as well).
> 
> 
> 
> And now it's about how diapers and home repairs, how many poor people own a fucking house dude?
> 
> We have other problems to cater to, like healthcare. And at the rate of progress this country travels at I'd like to focus on the people who actually need a hand



I flipped the focus on purpose. That’s not a “gotcha” that you made.

All types of people across the US, ~46 million of them would benefit from student loan relief.

That’s why my example keeps changing. I’m not fishing for one specific person. It would help across a broad swath of the population. Something most policy changes do not do.

I keep painting your argument as jealousy because that’s essentially what it boils down to. An entire generation took out loans, and only a fraction have been able to realistically pay it back.

I conceded the “below $75k” to you and you ignored it because you keep citing that quote of yours but you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

“I don’t care if others loans are forgiven” then immediately follow it up with a laundry list of reasons not to forgive anyone’s loans.

You say you’re looking out for the poor, you say your “just supporting fairness” you say that hardworking middle and upper classes should not be eligible, someone else suggested repossessing degrees, which is it? Do you support forgiving loans so Americans can move on and out that money to use, or do you want to revel in knowing that others are being drained financially “but at least they didn’t get one up on you”.

It’s self-serving to deny 46 million Americans debt relief when two generations ago a degree could be afforded with just summer job and zero financial aid which truly made it a “choice” versus entering the workforce to support a family.

I genuinely feel bad that there’s no job outside of working at a restaurant where someone with zero education can realistically break $50k.

And your point about healthcare? You saw what the Republican senate and Congress did to the first version of the Affordable Care Act, based on Romney’s original healthcare act.

America needs to fucking flex and start working on multiple problems at once. Because this “wait your turn” bullshit is hurting peoples lives.


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> Everyone went to college to get “good jobs” because there were no more good factory jobs. Because there were no good places to “work your way up” without a degree to unlock the gatekeepers.



Except that private and for profit schools were not required to get a job. Here is the argument I see...

Suppose someone is told their parents are in the hospital and won't make it 2 weeks, and that they need to travel home. People that cannot afford plane tickets can choose to 1) not travel, 2) travel by train to save money but possibly take longer, 3) travel by air with a multistop itenerary and layovers using cheapest option on a credit card, 4) travel first class direct flight while staying at a Ritz Carlton, running up their credit cards while bragging about sleeping with nurses and getting drunk. When the bill comes due, and someone in category 4 says they had no choice and didn't need to think of finances, are you going to refund their credit card?

FWIW I lived on less than $20k for *years* while going to college and had no trouble saving $200 / month to buy gear... Ya it would have been impossible with a family. People like my brother didn't go to college for exactly that reason. Why should people that chose to go in debt be treated any better than a blue collar worker that didn't feel they had that option?

I don't think people are arguing that a middle class relief should not go to middle class. I think they are arguing that the middle class shouldn't get a relief. If there is a contradiction, it's because the idea doesn't make sense. You are probably better off than you realize.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Mathemagician said:


> I flipped the focus on purpose. That’s not a “gotcha” that you made.
> 
> All types of people across the US, ~46 million of them would benefit from student loan relief.
> 
> That’s why my example keeps changing. I’m not fishing for one specific person. It would help across a broad swath of the population. Something most policy changes do not do.
> 
> I keep painting your argument as jealousy because that’s essentially what it boils down to. An entire generation took out loans, and only a fraction have been able to realistically pay it back.
> 
> I conceded the “below $75k” to you and you ignored it because you keep citing that quote of yours but you speak out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> “I don’t care if others loans are forgiven” then immediately follow it up with a laundry list of reasons not to forgive anyone’s loans.
> 
> You say you’re looking out for the poor, you say your “just supporting fairness” you say that hardworking middle and upper classes should not be eligible, someone else suggested repossessing degrees, which is it? Do you support forgiving loans so Americans can move on and out that money to use, or do you want to revel in knowing that others are being drained financially “but at least they didn’t get one up on you”.
> 
> It’s self-serving to deny 46 million Americans debt relief when two generations ago a degree could be afforded with just summer job and zero financial aid which truly made it a “choice” versus entering the workforce to support a family.
> 
> I genuinely feel bad that there’s no job outside of working at a restaurant where someone with zero education can realistically break $50k.
> 
> And your point about healthcare? You saw what the Republican senate and Congress did to the first version of the Affordable Care Act, based on Romney’s original healthcare act.
> 
> America needs to fucking flex and start working on multiple problems at once. Because this “wait your turn” bullshit is hurting peoples lives.



Yes America does need to change, drastically and sooner than later.

You also didn't "concede" anything, you shallowly agreed with me as a footnote then continued to support why you should in fact help people who can reasonably afford their financial commitments with loan forgiveness.

I've also never used the word "fair", to address my points. I expect those who can reasonably meet their agreed on commitments, to do so.  If your overall goal is to stimulate the economy and put money back into people's pockets, any relief accomplishes that. You need a baseline before you can consider funneling any extra income into the economy, so I will genuinely concede that overall loan relief across the board WOULD stimulate the economy. Middle Class/Upper Class now gets some more spending money and businesses begin to recover somewhat from a slaughtered economy while barely anything changes for the Lower/Working class.


----------



## narad

Is anyone arguing for a unilateral loan forgiveness?

It seems that's problematic, as high earners with advanced degrees often have high student loan debt. These are the people that sway the aggregate student loan stats to show it being a middle/upper class issue. My student loan debt was over $130k at one point, but that's what happens when you live in grad school for forever.

I think when you look at macro stats, the way @Jonathan20022 is doing, it's easy to think of student loan debt as an upper class problem. Upper class people have it, but it's a lower class _problem_. Apart from those people who can actually pay the loans back without too much hassle, there are people for whom a large amount of their annual take-home would be eaten up purely in the interest of their loans. And that is very much a lower class issue, that also contributes to a stagnating economy. Of course, I feel that I'm stating the obvious, that that's basically student loan forgiveness 101, but that's how far this conversation has drifted!

It's easy to identify these people who are really suffering by that loan-to-income ratio, and forgive their loans past some point of payment, or at least absolve them of paying interest they can't keep up with. I think in a lot of these cases borrowers would be able to pay their loans over a 10-20 year time frame without crippling their day-to-day and future financial aspirations, if only we extended protections on interest rates / forgave interest. Hell, I think I only took out like $60k in student loans, and look at what that turned into (FWIW, anyone in this situation should always go out of their way to pay $2.5k in interest every year for the tax write-off).

And of course this is typically the strategy taken by the UK. It's not anything new.


----------



## fantom

narad said:


> I think when you look at macro stats, the way @Jonathan20022 is doing, it's easy to think of student loan debt as an upper class problem. Upper class people have it, but it's a lower class _problem_. Apart from those people who can actually pay the loans back without too much hassle, there are people for whom a large amount of their annual take-home would be eaten up purely in the interest of their loans. And that is very much a lower class issue, that also contributes to a stagnating economy. Of course, I feel that I'm stating the obvious, that that's basically student loan forgiveness 101, but that's how far this conversation has drifted!



If you think people in debt due college education is a lower class problem, you really don't understand the lower class. The lower class are people dropping out of high school and not even applying to colleges that have to work 2-3 part time jobs with no benefits all while raising kids, maybe with help from a partner. According to Pew, lower class is household income less than $26k for single tax filers and $36k for married filers. If we look at just single tax filers, 12% of college loan debt households, at most, come from the lower class.

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt

To reiterate, we are arguing about giving a stimulus to some small percentage of people likely under 25 years old (88% of people student debt make more than $25k per year) when 33% of the entire population makes less than that and has fewer opportunities. How do you think the is helping people again?

If we were talking taxes and corporations, this would be trickle down economics. What makes student loan economy arguments any different than corporate tax cut economy arguments?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

When the only cogent counter arguments are "well, there are other people we can help" and "it only helps some people", maybe your arguments aren't really all that great. 

I don't think anyone is positioning student load debt relief as the only problem worth solving, as we are fully capable of solving multiple problems at once, we (collectively) just don't want or care too. 

That's one of the bullshit strawmen in that NYP article. That, well, folks with student debt aren't that bad off, and we can help so many more people with that money. Cool, how about both? The idea we can only do one thing at a time so we don't do anything is fucking stupid and it's transparent as fuck.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> If you think people in debt due college education is a lower class problem, you really don't understand the lower class. The lower class are people dropping out of high school and not even applying to colleges that have to work 2-3 part time jobs with no benefits all while raising kids, maybe with help from a partner.



I don't understand the lower class? Your depiction of the lower class sounds like some sort of except from a "scared straight" program.



fantom said:


> According to Pew, lower class is household income less than $26k for single tax filers and $36k for married filers. If we look at just single tax filers, 12% of college loan debt households, at most, come from the lower class.
> 
> https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt
> 
> To reiterate, we are arguing about giving a stimulus to some small percentage of people likely under 25 years old (88% of people student debt make more than $25k per year) when 33% of the entire population makes less than that and has fewer opportunities. How do you think the is helping people again?



I feel like this is why people need some sort of license to use statistics. Where do young college-educated people tend to live: San Francisco, or Detroit? And now you've classified a huge number of people who are low-income earners in their area as being in the middle or even upper class in terms of national statistics. You've also mixed the people qualifying as lower income during high school with those qualifying as such after college, where they would have student debt. You'd have to be doing a much more fine-grained analysis of demographics to prove the point you're trying to make here.

And I guess it bears repeating even though I mentioned it right off in that post you're quoting, that I don't know who here is pushing for unilateral debt relief. I'm pushing for an implementation of the UK-style system, where if people are earning enough to comfortably pay back the loans, they pay back the loans. If after 10-20 years of regular payments, that's enough. If you can't get a decent job straight out of school, your loans don't continue to balloon in the background, casting a cloud of anxiety over the youth of the country. 

So no, I don't find it like trickle-down economics. I find it like universal healthcare, or prisons that seek to rehabilitate inmates. Things that aim to reduce the amount of human suffering in the country even if it doesn't perfectly suit the up-by-your-bootstraps Ayn Rand-ian capitalist values of like... the main guy from Wolf of Wall Street.



MaxOfMetal said:


> That's one of the bullshit strawmen in that NYP article.



nypost gonna nypost


----------



## fantom

So just putting out poll information.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016a-700a-dca8-a1ff-7daaa8950001

Education system issues were consider a top problem by only 6% of responders. For comparison, the top answers with many times more responses were economy (taxes, jobs, unemployment, etc.), national security, health care, and seniors / elderly care.

Only 29% consider student debt a threat to the country. 53% think national debt is. 52% think climate change is. 50% think political instability. 46% think tax increases are.

2% of responds view student debt as a top critical issue. Immigration, national debt, top 1%, political instability, climate change, job outsourcing, trade disputes, etc.. all are several times more important to poll responders for a top issue. The only thing that was rated less frequently amongst the polled voters was lowering government regulations.

44% consider student debt a major problem. That number goes up to 54% if giving the $1.5 trillion number.

19% currently have student loan, 23% have had one in the past.


That's just information from one poll. My takeaway: forgiving student loans is less important to most voters than other things. I know Harris has a view on student loan forgiveness. But when it comes down to it, this to me is far less important to hash out at a national level than.... Climate change, political stability, bringing jobs back to USA, or immigration reform (as viewed by voters, not by me). If Biden/Harris prioritize this issue, I personally think they are failing the country.



narad said:


> I feel like this is why people need some sort of license to use statistics



Like a college or graduate degree? Btw, I have a background in machine learning and statistics. I published papers in computer vision journals (which are heavily based on statistical methods) I've pretty much said in several of my posts that you have to look at the averages when talking about 10s of millions of people (within a deviation of the mean).

I think I should just stay out of this. Apparently it isn't a popular opinion here to think reform is necessary but that loan forgiveness seems like the wrong solution.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> That's just information from one poll. My takeaway: forgiving student loans is less important to most voters than other things. I know Harris has a view on student loan forgiveness. But when it comes down to it, this to me is far less important to hash out at a national level than.... Climate change, political stability, bringing jobs back to USA, or immigration reform (as viewed by voters, not by me). If Biden/Harris prioritize this issue, I personally think they are failing the country.



I fail to see how making student loan debt an important issue would somehow detract from efforts on climate change, bringing jobs back to the USA, or immigration reform. 

And in regards to education reform as a whole, I don't believe citizens always know what is in their best interests. Currently, if your job and income is in jeopardy, as many are due to covid, naturally that's going to be a huge priority. But looking ahead, an well-educated population is probably a great defense against future periods of high unemployment.


----------



## fantom

On topic, from a left leaning publisher...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/22/opinion/student-debt-bailout-would-be-unjust/


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ah yes, what we definitely need more of is the same argument by another conservative editorial writer, that'll do it.


----------



## Randy

With all due respect, unless it's matters of life and death, I give no fucks about emotional appeal justifications for shit. If you wanna sell me on the issue with wiping out student loan debt, give me some Xs and Os. "It will make people feel bad" coming from people who are butthurt because they paid for their schooling with a subsequent well paying job will not move the needle for me. Too bad so sad.


----------



## fantom

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand why anyone needs to convince anyone else of anything. Pushing a policy that a large portion of taxpayers might "feel" is wrong isn't good...just look at half the crap McConnell and Trump did.


But here is another analysis. I have no idea if it is conservative or liberal, just like I didn't know the last one.


https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt


"... 48 percent of outstanding student debt is owed by households with graduate degrees."

"...the most affluent households—the top 25 percent of households with the highest earnings—held 34 percent of all outstanding education debt. The top 10 percent of households, with incomes of $173,000 or higher, held 11 percent of the debt."​
"These analyses, consistent with other findings, suggest that debt forgiveness plans would be regressive—providing the largest monetary benefits to those with the highest incomes."

"The concentration of education debt among the relatively affluent means that some policies designed to reduce the burden of education debt are actually regressive. Focusing on lowering the interest rates on all outstanding student debt or on forgiving large amounts of that debt would bestow significant benefits on relatively well-off people."​Take what you want from it..I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything anymore. I'm just putting out information for people to judge on their own.


----------



## StevenC

fantom said:


> So just putting out poll information.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016a-700a-dca8-a1ff-7daaa8950001
> 
> Education system issues were consider a top problem by only 6% of responders. For comparison, the top answers with many times more responses were economy (taxes, jobs, unemployment, etc.), national security, health care, and seniors / elderly care.
> 
> Only 29% consider student debt a threat to the country. 53% think national debt is. 52% think climate change is. 50% think political instability. 46% think tax increases are.
> 
> 2% of responds view student debt as a top critical issue. Immigration, national debt, top 1%, political instability, climate change, job outsourcing, trade disputes, etc.. all are several times more important to poll responders for a top issue. The only thing that was rated less frequently amongst the polled voters was lowering government regulations.
> 
> 44% consider student debt a major problem. That number goes up to 54% if giving the $1.5 trillion number.
> 
> 19% currently have student loan, 23% have had one in the past.
> 
> 
> That's just information from one poll. My takeaway: forgiving student loans is less important to most voters than other things. I know Harris has a view on student loan forgiveness. But when it comes down to it, this to me is far less important to hash out at a national level than.... Climate change, political stability, bringing jobs back to USA, or immigration reform (as viewed by voters, not by me). If Biden/Harris prioritize this issue, I personally think they are failing the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Like a college or graduate degree? Btw, I have a background in machine learning and statistics. I published papers in computer vision journals (which are heavily based on statistical methods) I've pretty much said in several of my posts that you have to look at the averages when talking about 10s of millions of people (within a deviation of the mean).
> 
> I think I should just stay out of this. Apparently it isn't a popular opinion here to think reform is necessary but that loan forgiveness seems like the wrong solution.


I feel like this is why people need a license to use statistics.

70+ million Americans thought Trump was doing a good enough job to have a second term. Polling is a terrible way to design policy.


----------



## fantom

narad said:


> I feel like this is why people need some sort of license to use statistics





fantom said:


> Like a college or graduate degree? Btw, I have a background in machine learning and statistics...





StevenC said:


> I feel like this is why people need a license to use statistics



What's with repeating the ad hominem attack? Was that really necessary? You either missed the other response or are intentionally trying to incite me. I hope it is the former. If you don't think the college system is a good enough license, then this thread is super hypocritical.

As I said, I'm not longer trying to convince anyone of anything. I'll stay out of this one from now on.


----------



## StevenC

fantom said:


> What's with repeating the ad hominem attack? Was that really necessary? You either missed the other response or are intentionally trying to incite me. I hope it is the former. If you don't think the college system is a good enough license, then this thread is super hypocritical.
> 
> As I said, I'm not longer trying to convince anyone of anything. I'll stay out of this one from now on.


It's not an attack, sorry. I'm illuminating the irony of flaunting your credentials in the same post as using statistics badly to prove a point.

I'd argue (as I did on page 1) that the US education system, top to bottom, is tragically lacking. You all get a shitty product and should get a refund. I don't see how that's hypocritical.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## wheresthefbomb

Debt forgiveness? Sure, but I'd settle for bringing back the guillotine.



Rohitstad said:


> For most people, this student loan is like an addition to taxes they pay yearly. It is not too difficult to repay, but you get a good education.


----------



## Demiurge

Rohitstad said:


> For most people, this student loan is like an addition to taxes they pay yearly. It is not too difficult to repay, but you get a good education.


It depends on the loan. Mine came out to something like $120/mo which was about that easy. I got an OK-paying job out of school and bought a condo that fall. For those with loans in the six-figures, their payments were probably closer to my mortgage payment which is tough for someone starting-out.

Schools spend so much time on "college prep", trying to maximize test scores, burnish applications, etc. to get you shooting for the stars into the best school possible, but- please someone tell me if their experience was different- not a single moment was spent talking about loans.


----------



## Adieu

One problem: useless degrees in advanced basketweaving are being turned into unofficial gateway licenses for all manner of jobs utterly unrelated to baskets

Courses in typing, phone manners, invoicing, and business letter composition? HEEEELL NO, GOD FORBID.

Go get a bachelor's or master's in something unrelated and impractical instead.

Why the hell would we want to pay for unskilled and untrained kids to write off debts incurred for learning nothing useful in pursuit of a piece of paper to make their job prospects better than ours?


----------



## Adieu

Or to put it more succinctly:

ANY LABOR FORCE PARTICIPANT (EXCEPT THOSE WITH CRUSHINGLY GLORIOUS AND SUPERIOR EDUCATIONAL AND CAREER ATTAINMENT) IS INTERESTED IN MAKING HIGHER EDUCATION AS PAINFUL, EXPENSIVE, AND INACCESSIBLE TO OTHERS AS POSSIBLE.

Add to that how student loan forgiveness would create a near-instant bubble on the low end of the housing market for about a decade, drive up inflation, and screw up access to housing for the rest of us...
Debt forgiveness? Hell no.

It would cause serious misery for the rest of us.

If you want vocational programs for the poor, JUST MAKE THEM. In exchange for signing away several years of their lives to work on infrastructure projects or something. And make them conditional on learning useful and productive skills. No retroactive freebies on junk degrees!


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> One problem: useless degrees in advanced basketweaving are being turned into unofficial gateway licenses for all manner of jobs utterly unrelated to baskets
> 
> Courses in typing, phone manners, invoicing, and business letter composition? HEEEELL NO, GOD FORBID.
> 
> Go get a bachelor's or master's in something unrelated and impractical instead.
> 
> Why the hell would we want to pay for unskilled and untrained kids to write off debts incurred for learning nothing useful in pursuit of a piece of paper to make their job prospects better than ours?


You've been had. By and large, those aren't real course but modules in other degrees being misrepresented for culture war reasons. 

Why would a university have a class on basketweaving? Well imagine you're studying indigenous history and it becomes a pretty relevant topic focus. Should we be without historians?


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> You've been had. By and large, those aren't real course but modules in other degrees being misrepresented for culture war reasons.
> 
> Why would a university have a class on basketweaving? Well imagine you're studying indigenous history and it becomes a pretty relevant topic focus. Should we be without historians?



"Advanced Basketweaving" is local slang for a bullshit liberal arts degree.

And YES, we most certainly SHOULD be without the vast majority of people with history degrees.

Much of teaching will soon be relegated to lectures by the best of the elites broadcast over the internet, so mediocre historians will all be selling used cars and linoleum.

And if you forgive their student debt, that'll just put additional pressure on people who actually tied their lives to selling cars and linoleum. And on everybody else, once useless people with fourth-rate diplomas can afford to put more of their money towards housing.

The PROPER solutions would involve funneling them into indentured servitude to infrastructure projects or maybe some kind of super-punitive extended bankruptcy method that would disqualify them from getting loans for a good 10-15 years.


----------



## Adieu

Sign up for a 5-year tour to build wind farms in Oklahoma (with a $500k early exit penalty)? FORGIVEN

Wanna keep being a barista with a masters, but now want a mortgage instead of your loan payments for studying feminism? That'll put downward pressure on near-minimum wages AND price the working class out of a starter home bubble. HELL NO.


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> With all due respect, unless it's matters of life and death, I give no fucks about emotional appeal justifications for shit. If you wanna sell me on the issue with wiping out student loan debt, give me some Xs and Os. "It will make people feel bad" coming from people who are butthurt because they paid for their schooling with a subsequent well paying job will not move the needle for me. Too bad so sad.


My issue with debt forgiveness is that it is a huge losing issue for democrats. Like, yes, I think it should be forgiven and that the debt industry is a huge scam. However, a very substantial portion of the liberal base and what I'd wager is a MAJORITY of the conservative base would actively be angry if the decision is made, because the popular rhetoric among the people without college degrees (on both sides of the fence - primarily rural whites and non-Asian minorities) is roughly "that would be a giveaway to all those NYC asshole young adults that are only in debt because they're living wayyyy above their means instead of paying their debts like REAL AMERICANS! It would be like spitting in our face! I'm voting for Trump if they do that!!" And that opinion also applies to plenty of people that ARE college-educated that did pay off their loans. It would be viewed as massively unfair that suddenly tons of "undeserving irresponsible people" get what is tantamount to thousands of dollars of free money that wouldn't go to anyone that DIDN'T get in debt up to their eyeballs or had successfully paid it off.

I am more of the opinion that it should be a lot easier to declare bankruptcy, kind of how it was in the early 00s. That way you can at least help the problem a bit without making Republicans even more likely to clean up in the next elections.


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Sign up for a 5-year tour to build wind farms in Oklahoma (with a $500k early exit penalty)? FORGIVEN
> 
> Wanna keep being a barista with a masters, but now want a mortgage instead of your loan payments for studying feminism? That'll put downward pressure on near-minimum wages AND price the working class out of a starter home bubble. HELL NO.


Based on America's current situation, I'd say they need a lot more sociologists than they currently have.


----------



## MFB

StevenC said:


> Based on America's current situation, I'd say they need a lot more sociologists than they currently have.



We could have a million sociologists, but it would mean people are suddenly more apt. to listen to them; hell, it'd probably just be another talking point of "well they didn't have to pay for their degree, so how much do they really know/are they worth?"


----------



## bostjan

In medival times, there was no public education. The average person was pretty smart when it came to agriculture, but kind of hopeless concerning any other information. Around the time of the Renaissance, people in cities and towns were given public primary education, and there was a boom in technological development and art. Into the modern era, we had free public secondary education, and another huge leap forward in science and technology. What would happen if we offered free higher education to the public? Would it just be a gigantic useless extra cost to the public?

What about the people at the turn of the century who said it was stupid to send everyone to high school, or the people in the 16th/17th century who said it was a waste of time to send kids to elementary school?

I say give everyone the opportunity for higher education. At least make it so that there is some sort of metric of achievement that opens higher education up to those who have the aptitude to benefit from it. And don't tell me about scholarships. I was NHS, graduated high school with the highest honours, scored one point below perfect on my ACT, and my scholarships were great, but they only took a bite out of my university expenses, to the point where I couldn't afford to go to the university that was my second choice (I was rejected by my first choice, which I wouldn't have been able to afford anyway). 

I went to the university back when it was still financially possible for a middle class person to work a job and pay tuition. Nowadays, that's just not feasible. If we don't do something about it, higher education will simply end up being exclusive to the upper class like it was prior to modern history. If that's what we want, then we are stupid. If we are stupid, we need more education. QED.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Y'all talk about "basket weaving" degrees like an entire generation of people just set out to waste time and money. Every adult in my young life made it clear that there were no options available to me aside from college, and that the world would be my oyster once I had a degree. That's right, _*A *_degree, as in the indefinite article implying "literally any fucking degree." emphasis *FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS. *

This was the same treatment anyone and everyone with a demonstrated modicum of talent for learning was given in my age group. There was no "make sure you don't get a stupid degree like basket weaving" talk, there was only the U SMART, U COLLEGE, U JOB talk. I didn't make academia this way, and neither did any baristas with master's degrees. We showed up, did what we were told, and now everybody wants to act like "WELL GEE IDK WHY THEY WENT AND GOT STUDENT LOANS THAT WASN'T VERY CLEVER WAS IT"

So here I am, I've got my degree just like all the big adults said and wouldn't you know it, I'm still a fucking bartender, except instead of a regular-ass bartender I'm a bartender with close to $30k in debt for a degree I don't -and won't- use unless I decide to go be a fucking spy for the US government. I work for the school district even though it pays less than bartending because then I at least get to pretend I'm using my degree. Some choice.

I had _one_ teacher tell us that there were legitimate options outside of college. One, in 13 years of public school, and we were all Juniors already on track to college (I was already _in_ college) so it was too fucking late. By the time I realized my energies might be better spent elsewhere, I was far enough along that not-finishing would've been even stupider.

In summation I don't know what the answer is but anyone trying to blame students for being in debt can fuck directly off.


----------



## nightflameauto

wheresthefbomb said:


> Y'all talk about "basket weaving" degrees like an entire generation of people just set out to waste time and money. Every adult in my young life made it clear that there were no options available to me aside from college, and that the world would be my oyster once I had a degree. That's right, _*A *_degree, as in the indefinite article implying "literally any fucking degree." emphasis *FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS. *
> 
> This was the same treatment anyone and everyone with a demonstrated modicum of talent for learning was given in my age group. There was no "make sure you don't get a stupid degree like basket weaving" talk, there was only the U SMART, U COLLEGE, U JOB talk. I didn't make academia this way, and neither did any baristas with master's degrees. We showed up, did what we were told, and now everybody wants to act like "WELL GEE IDK WHY THEY WENT AND GOT STUDENT LOANS THAT WASN'T VERY CLEVER WAS IT"
> 
> So here I am, I've got my degree just like all the big adults said and wouldn't you know it, I'm still a fucking bartender, except instead of a regular-ass bartender I'm a bartender with close to $30k in debt for a degree I don't -and won't- use unless I decide to go be a fucking spy for the US government. I work for the school district even though it pays less than bartending because then I at least get to pretend I'm using my degree. Some choice.
> 
> I had _one_ teacher tell us that there were legitimate options outside of college. One, in 13 years of public school, and we were all Juniors already on track to college (I was already _in_ college) so it was too fucking late. By the time I realized my energies might be better spent elsewhere, I was far enough along that not-finishing would've been even stupider.


This is the shit that kills me. I had a similar story, except that I'd spent enough time as a farmer by the time I graduated high school, being around a *LOT* of people, both farmers and the jobs surrounding farming, that were making a good living without a college degree, that I knew at the VERY least I wanted time off before college to assess if it was the right move. Of course, between counselors, parents, relatives, etc, I ended up shoved into college, which I subsequently quit the second I sat down and went over the financials. I never went back.

A lot of my peers weren't so lucky.

There's a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure put on students to go to college and an even more tremendous amount of pressure to go into debt to do it if your parents aren't wealthy enough to be able to pay outright. And from what I've seen with my niece's graduating class (just graduated a week and some change ago) that pressure has only grown in the last three decades. I'm sure the tremendous, crushing debt is a great way to start out in the world when you finally get out on your own. And then you get to face an entire society screaming in your face you were an idiot for doing it to begin with?

I don't get it. How can somebody be so disconnected from reality that they don't see that as an unfair burden. It's not like college costs are even in the same ballpark today as they were even twenty years ago, let alone as long ago as some of the top scolders went to school. Back when I went, it was still almost feasible to pay for college with a almost full-time job on the side. Now? Forget it. No way a kid that age is going to make the kind of bank they'd need to pay for school while going. Maybe if they did a semester, took five years off, then did the next semester. But that's no way to get that precious piece of paper that means so much to HR departments and fuck-all to anybody else.

I've been in the labor force, full-time, since before 1990, and I think that college debt should be forgiven. It's asinine that we just KEEP finding ways to fuck over our young people and then wonder why they're so bitter and disengaged. Fuck. I'm bitter and disengaged and I don't have NEAR the burdens a kid graduating today will have to face.

Then again, we seem to prioritize literally ANYTHING over the happiness and health of our citizens. It doesn't shock me that this is a raging debate. Too many people got theirs, pulled the ladder up behind them, and enjoy pointing and laughing at the poor suckers that were behind them.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> Back when I went, it was still almost feasible to pay for college with a almost full-time job on the side. Now? Forget it.



Even 15 years ago, I was able to pay for one semester with my PFD and the next with my tax refund, late fees and all* (shoutout to the education tax credit) but rising tuition costs and a lifetime limit on ed tax credit saw to that. I paid for a _lot _of my school out of pocket, and only started taking loans when the above strategy was no longer workable.

What an entire 15 credit courseload cost me back then, _one fucking 300-level class_ costs now. Getting certified as a SpEd teacher would nearly _double _my debt, then I really would be a fucking barista with a master's degree cause I'll need a second job to get out of debt by the time I die. That or I can nickel-and-dime it one $1000 class at a time and I'll be a teacher by 2032 if I'm lucky.

*And that, was only with the bank of Dad picking up rent payments. I lived skinny as fuck, I honestly don't even remember how I fed myself.

Dad was a carpenter and taught me a lot, I worked for him for years, but he was very firm that I didn't belong in the trades and that I belonged in academia.


----------



## Metalman X

I just wanna point out that the "learn a trade" route isn't even a gonna help you dodge student loan debt. I worked for 15 years as an electrician, started my apprenticeship right after completing the mandatory trade school, which back in 2006 was close to $30,000 (and that started jumping up dramatically just a couple years after I completely, likely more than double if not triple now). And you needed those courses even to just get an apprenticeship, which is another 4-7 years depending on stuff til you have enough hours to actually take your journeymans exam and get an actual license. 


I had physical limitations going in to begin with. me, and my former SO who had to co-sign my loan even agreed they were predatory cuz they assured me all throughout training/schooling plenty of bench work for a licensed guy. Reality is, at minimum you bust your ass doing industrial lighting or something, and get paid about as well as a decent janitorial job. The actual "big money" everyone thinks all electricians make is mostly all industrial construction jobs, where sure, you make $30-$40 an hour, but get ready to be physically destroyed every day unless you can/want to become management and give up all your personal time too.

I basically toughed out the lighting end best my body could for most of my time, worked as an inspector for a solar install company for another 3 years. But my back is completely fucked now from all that because by the time i realized I had the mind for the work, but not the body, I was already too far into it all to stop. So now I'm 42, STILL have half that debt lingering, I struggle to even change my cats litter box, went through a bankruptcy, would be homeless if not for one good friend cuz most my family is deceased, and the one that isnt (my sister) is a single parent with 3 children and her own problems. 

Never mind student loan forgiveness, I cant even get disability benefits, which I not only need, but would like to see if I could use even a portion some of to secure some kind of education/training where I could be functionally employed again.

The system is not your friend is only here to bilk you, not lift you up and help you in any real way (dont evcen get me started on what it's like getting decent healthcare, let alone mental health stuff on state insurance.... the only places that'll even look at you are are booked to hell n' back). Sooooo many things in this country need a major overhaul. I've been doing my best to navigate so much of it as i can on my own and I just keep getting buried deeper all the while.

Which also reminds me.... don't ever let yourself incur serious injury that will hinder your work. Unless you got family/friends to help you out, your pretty much fucked.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Metalman X said:


> I just wanna point out that the "learn a trade" route isn't even a gonna help you dodge student loan debt. I worked for 15 years as an electrician, started my apprenticeship right after completing the mandatory trade school, which back in 2006 was close to $30,000 (and that started jumping up dramatically just a couple years after I completely, likely more than double if not triple now). And you needed those courses even to just get an apprenticeship, which is another 4-7 years depending on stuff til you have enough hours to actually take your journeymans exam and get an actual license.
> 
> 
> I had physical limitations going in to begin with. me, and my former SO who had to co-sign my loan even agreed they were predatory cuz they assured me all throughout training/schooling plenty of bench work for a licensed guy. Reality is, at minimum you bust your ass doing industrial lighting or something, and get paid about as well as a decent janitorial job. The actual "big money" everyone thinks all electricians make is mostly all industrial construction jobs, where sure, you make $30-$40 an hour, but get ready to be physically destroyed every day unless you can/want to become management and give up all your personal time too.
> 
> I basically toughed out the lighting end best my body could for most of my time, worked as an inspector for a solar install company for another 3 years. But my back is completely fucked now from all that because by the time i realized I had the mind for the work, but not the body, I was already too far into it all to stop. So now I'm 42, STILL have half that debt lingering, I struggle to even change my cats litter box, went through a bankruptcy, would be homeless if not for one good friend cuz most my family is deceased, and the one that isnt (my sister) is a single parent with 3 children and her own problems.
> 
> Never mind student loan forgiveness, I cant even get disability benefits, which I not only need, but would like to see if I could use even a portion some of to secure some kind of education/training where I could be functionally employed again.
> 
> The system is not your friend is only here to bilk you, not lift you up and help you in any real way (dont evcen get me started on what it's like getting decent healthcare, let alone mental health stuff on state insurance.... the only places that'll even look at you are are booked to hell n' back). Sooooo many things in this country need a major overhaul. I've been doing my best to navigate so much of it as i can on my own and I just keep getting buried deeper all the while.
> 
> Which also reminds me.... don't ever let yourself incur serious injury that will hinder your work. Unless you got family/friends to help you out, your pretty much fucked.



That fucking sucks man, my heart goes out to you. 

I feel you on the injury hindering work, am currently tangling with carpal tunnel, trying to figure out WTF to do to pay my bills as almost every skill I have invested myself in requires me to use my hands. Bartending is clearly not sustainable but I can't just stop working, if anything I need to be grinding myself even harder this summer because I have a lot of extra bills right now.


----------



## ArtDecade

Rohitstad said:


> And there is no such thing as “forgiving” the student debt. Someone will have to pay for it, and this someone will be a taxpayer who will not be really happy about it. I know it can be troublesome for some people to find a job and repay the debt, but you knew that before signing the papers. You can always hire some company like Mortgage Advisor Sunderland to help you get ab better offer from a bank and have to repay less. Some people even go to Europe to get an education, but it can be troublesome.



Think of forgiving loans as giving tax break to billionaires. Now that money can just trickle down.


----------



## Mathemagician

Rohitstad said:


> And there is no such thing as “forgiving” the student debt. Someone will have to pay for it, and this someone will be a taxpayer who will not be really happy about it. I know it can be troublesome for some people to find a job and repay the debt, but you knew that before signing the papers. You can always hire some company like Mortgage Advisor Sunderland to help you get ab better offer from a bank and have to repay less. Some people even go to Europe to get an education, but it can be troublesome.




For clarity - I don’t have any loans. 

No one “knew” that. Financial literacy is not a mandatory part of most of us education through HS. No one explains how compounding open-ended interest affects the remaining value of a loan for education.

I’m in my thirties and we were absolutely told that any degree guaranteed a good job. I work with people in their 50’s and 60’s who paid for part or all of their schooling by working a summer job between semesters.

Myself and my peers worked nearly full time or more while going to school.

Not everyone went to an expensive private school.

State school tuitions have more than doubled in the last decade alone.

Salaries have not. That is tied to other ongoing issues

And to your final point - “Tax Payers” are not the ones going to have to pay back loans for education. Because the money paid monthly towards those loans would immediately begin circulating the actual economy.

People would be able to put down for homes/home repairs/clothing/food/etc all things that help small and local businesses. So even the guys who don’t have student loan debt benefit. The guy who went to trade school for plumbing is going to get more work from money that would have disappeared into Fannie/Freddie/Navient/etc.


Think of forgiving loans as giving tax break to billionaires. Now that money can just trickle down.


I may be misinterpreting this if it’s sarcasm? Student loan forgiveness isn’t a billionaire tax break. It’s a direct tax break to working class Americans and a large economic shot in the arm to consumer spending.

Consumer spending which props up a significant part of the US economy.

Unfortunately there are many people who are misinformed on how economic activity works and just have a personal vendetta against seeing others “get something” they don’t benefit from.

I’ve said it before that the biggest roadblock to fixing the student loan crisis is individual jealousy from people who have already been fucked by the system - either by not being able to afford college or having taken out offensive loans and paid them back already - and their desire to never see things improve for anyone else.

There is zero economic incentive to lock higher education behind extortionate loans with zero recourse for the borrower.

If a high paying job is not guaranteed - which it is not obviously. Then the loan itself should not be guaranteed to be paid back, at a minimum student loans should be allowed to be defaulted on via bankruptcy. And until the late 90’s that was the case and America didn’t lose out on anything.

For the last 20+ years financial institutions see student loans as fantastic revenue source because the borrower is capital F fucked no matter what.

The system should be paid for like elementary/HS/libraries or public roads via taxes. Use it if you want or don’t, but it’s there for everyone to make use of however they can rich or poor.

Every “reason” someone is against it boils down to “why should I have to pay for someone else’s schooling?

Because your child may be working for one of those other child’s companies one day.


----------



## bostjan

With job training, you are always trying to hit a moving target. We've had two entire generations now who were told "go to college or else you won't get a job," only to find out that their bachelor's degree that cost them $300k only lands them a job that pays $40k/year, so, welcome to being in debt for the rest of your life. Or, worse, you studied history and the museums all already have curators with Ph.D.'s, so, either go into another several hundred thousand in debt to get a graduate degree or else work at Denny's. If you plan out option A, you find out, that, 5 years later, all of the museums still have curators, and all of the local universities have history professors, too, so, next thing you know, you are uprooting and moving across the country for a decent job, except, after you get there, the next republican congress pulls public funding for universities and now you are unemployed with a bunch of moving expenses to still pay off, in addition to nearly a million in student loans.

Even if you got a degree that *everyone* told you was a sure thing, you still got fucked. Let's say you grew up in Detroit, where they made cars. Everyone said "be an engineer," so, you studied mechanical engineering and did an internship with Chrysler. Then you graduated, but, conveniently timed, Chrysler is bought out by Daimler, and they fire all of their US engineers - hundreds of them. Whelp, guess that internship was useless. Maybe GM or Ford... oh, but then you are competing for a job there against hundreds of people who just got fired from Chrysler. That's a no-go. Get a job with Delphi, except a year later, they are Chapter 7, and, as the least senior engineer there, you are booted with no severance. Guess you are moving to China to engineer cars there. Hope you speak Mandarin really well. If that doesn't work out, you could become a peasant there, which works great for foreigners...

Naw, this is all a social problem, because it affects millions of graduates. Social problems require social solutions. Telling everyone to buck up because it's their own fault that their teachers, principals, school vocational guidance counsellors, parents, aunts and uncles, and the old man next door all told them to go to college and they believed it - well, that's just not going to solve the problem. You're going to have to forgive the debt either way, though, otherwise, these millennials are going to be carrying that debt to their graves. What then, it'll be their fault for dying?  Either way, that debt isn't going to get repayed. Millennials are starting to hit 40 now. And they are still getting paid less than their boomer parents did in their 40's even with degrees now. It's not going to work out.

Might as well get ahead of it and have the taxpayer foot the bill. If that doesn't sound fair, IDK what to tell you, other than that it's a problem affecting a large scale of people, therefore it requires a solution supported by a large scale of people to fix it.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Currently, the single greatest obstacle to me making the full commitment to a post-baccalaureate SpEd Cert/Master's of Ed program is the calculation that the additional income the cert and master's would net me (relative to other positions in the district that I am currently or soon will be qualified for) doesn't even come close to the amount of additional lifetime debt I would incur as a result.

In other words, unless I accidentally hit oil in my backyard like Jed Clampett, I will never be a teacher. I registered for a class this spring with every intention of applying to the program until I took a look at the cold hard numbers and came to the above realization. That's fucking depressing as shit, there is no good reason that someone with the skills, disposition, and desire to teach should be gatekept by a measly (in the grand scheme) $30-40k.


----------



## Mathemagician

They don’t pay teachers enough to be worth the education and training required. 

That’s job is worth $60k/yr to start minimum. And I mean in the south. Otherwise what is even the point if you can’t afford to live?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Mathemagician said:


> They don’t pay teachers enough to be worth the education and training required.
> 
> That’s job is worth $60k/yr to start minimum. And I mean in the south. Otherwise what is even the point if you can’t afford to live?



Almost every person who I grew up with that went into teaching left eventually, even after 10+ years, because of how lousy the pay is. 

The only folks who stick to it are "true believers" who absolutely love the job/kids/etc. or folks too bad to find better work, which is saying something. 

There are _temporary_ factory workers who make more, gross and net, than a lot of teachers out there.


----------



## Mathemagician

Bruh banks start at $40-50k a year now. And there is no overtime/weekend work like parent teacher conferences, or grading papers.

I know servers that were taking home > $50k/yr due to tips even 15 years ago.

Teacher pay is dogshit. You can’t build a life on that.


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> Y'all talk about "basket weaving" degrees like an entire generation of people just set out to waste time and money. Every adult in my young life made it clear that there were no options available to me aside from college, and that the world would be my oyster once I had a degree. That's right, _*A *_degree, as in the indefinite article implying "literally any fucking degree." emphasis *FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS. *
> 
> This was the same treatment anyone and everyone with a demonstrated modicum of talent for learning was given in my age group. There was no "make sure you don't get a stupid degree like basket weaving" talk, there was only the U SMART, U COLLEGE, U JOB talk. I didn't make academia this way, and neither did any baristas with master's degrees. We showed up, did what we were told, and now everybody wants to act like "WELL GEE IDK WHY THEY WENT AND GOT STUDENT LOANS THAT WASN'T VERY CLEVER WAS IT"
> 
> So here I am, I've got my degree just like all the big adults said and wouldn't you know it, I'm still a fucking bartender, except instead of a regular-ass bartender I'm a bartender with close to $30k in debt for a degree I don't -and won't- use unless I decide to go be a fucking spy for the US government. I work for the school district even though it pays less than bartending because then I at least get to pretend I'm using my degree. Some choice.
> 
> I had _one_ teacher tell us that there were legitimate options outside of college. One, in 13 years of public school, and we were all Juniors already on track to college (I was already _in_ college) so it was too fucking late. By the time I realized my energies might be better spent elsewhere, I was far enough along that not-finishing would've been even stupider.
> 
> In summation I don't know what the answer is but anyone trying to blame students for being in debt can fuck directly off.



Of course they did.

Civil engineering, computer science, law school, and medical school are KNOWN to be the only programs worth a damn.

Otherwise, you were known to be better off becoming a certified aircraft mechanic or licensed plumber.

And the reasons most of us never did any of that:
1. Calculus = scary
2. Law/medical school = long, expensive, competitive
3. Motor oil and toilets = dirty plebeian occupations


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> Almost every person who I grew up with that went into teaching left eventually, even after 10+ years, because of how lousy the pay is.



Same, but worth noting that it wasn't just the pay. Teacher salaries have always been kinda crap but people loved the work. My friends who left the field were also extremely frustrated with the way that No Child Left Behind changed education and made it so heavily focused on teaching for those standardized exams and hitting arbitrary metrics. Teaching in the US changed from being an opportunity to directly inspire and positively impact the next generation into a miserable slog through a curriculum you had no control over and constantly dealing with ungrateful, stressed out, angry parents. Nobody wants to do *that* for a low salary. Add active shooter drills and managing online classes and I'm amazed that there's anyone at all left willing to teach.


----------



## Adieu

Oh, nobody wants to TEACH. It's just a powertripper job option for those too bookish or squeamish to join the po-po.


----------



## Grindspine

Eh, fuck student loans. Covid stalling payments was the only way I could afford a house in 2020, which would be an impossibility with housing prices now. I graduated right after the market crash, so feel a certain betrayal by society promising that hard work and education would lead to at least moderate financial success.

I have three college degrees, have worked up to three jobs at a time (full-time and two part-time) just to make rent prior to buying a house. I finally got a decently paying job, but after the hard work over the last couple of decades (I worked multiple jobs while still in school too), I am at the point of permanent shoulder damage.

Should borrowers expect to either pay back student loans or work toward student loan forgiveness through a non-profit? Absolutely, that is what I am currently doing. Should student loan interest be reduced to zero or near-zero. Also, absolutely, since it can take decades to pay back the expenses for a degree from most accredited institutions.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Adieu said:


> Of course they did.
> 
> Civil engineering, computer science, law school, and medical school are KNOWN to be the only programs worth a damn.
> 
> Otherwise, you were known to be better off becoming a certified aircraft mechanic or licensed plumber.
> 
> And the reasons most of us never did any of that:
> 1. Calculus = scary
> 2. Law/medical school = long, expensive, competitive
> 3. Motor oil and toilets = dirty plebeian occupations





Adieu said:


> Oh, nobody wants to TEACH. It's just a powertripper job option for those too bookish or squeamish to join the po-po.



honestly what the fuck is wrong with you? Did I not just express my deep sadness at my inability to become a teacher? why are you such a callous dick? Also I am not about to argue the legitimacy of my experiences with you, fuck off



Mathemagician said:


> They don’t pay teachers enough to be worth the education and training required.
> 
> That’s job is worth $60k/yr to start minimum. And I mean in the south. Otherwise what is even the point if you can’t afford to live?



It starts at $60k here (with a master's) and this is one of the highest paying public school systems in the country. I guess I'm just learning what everyone else already knew. Oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## StevenC

Student loan interest is dumb. Society benefits massively from its people undertaking third level education. Taxing people for trying to better themselves is a very specifically American thing.



wheresthefbomb said:


> honestly what the fuck is wrong with you? Did I not just express my deep sadness at my inability to become a teacher? why are you such a callous dick? Also I am not about to argue the legitimacy of my experiences with you, fuck off
> 
> 
> 
> It starts at $60k here (with a master's) and this is one of the highest paying public school systems in the country. I guess I'm just learning what everyone else already knew. Oh well, maybe next time.


You have to understand Adieu is still in their "STEM industry is the only thing of value" phase of propping up their identity. Plenty of us have been there.


----------



## Mathemagician

wheresthefbomb said:


> It starts at $60k here (with a master's) and this is one of the highest paying public school systems in the country. I guess I'm just learning what everyone else already knew. Oh well, maybe next time.



Yep that’s why I added the qualifier “in the south” which is known for much lower COL than major northern cities. 

No one expects teacher to make bank, but it should still afford a modest/middle class life. 

You know the general fairness of “an honest days work for an honest days pay”. 

I mean the GOP goal is to ruin the public school system enough that privatizing education is the only viable option. Defunding education drops results which breeds resentment which is directed at the “failing system” instead of the problem of reduced funding. This allows partisan politics to then demand further defunding schools “until results improve”. 

Well that and allowing tax dollars to go to religious schools - which is the exact opposite of separation of church and state.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> You have to understand Adieu is still in their "STEM industry is the only thing of value" phase of propping up their identity. Plenty of us have been there.



Nope, I just mistrust and detest the vast majority of teachers. I view teachers like many people view police. I really really really hate the vast majority of them.

Actually, I think that their relatively low incomes are one of the few redeeming qualities of the US education system.

I hope they will soon all be replaced by elites doing video lessons. It will do real good for the children and, free bonus? It will suck for the teachers and thus bring me joy.

Also, I don't work in STEM.


----------



## vilk

Adieu said:


> Nope, I just mistrust and detest the vast majority of teachers. I view teachers like many people view police. I really really really hate the vast majority of them.
> 
> Actually, I think that their relatively low incomes are one of the few redeeming qualities of the US education system.
> 
> I hope they will soon all be replaced by elites doing video lessons. It will do real good for the children and, free bonus? It will suck for the teachers and thus bring me joy.
> 
> Also, I don't work in STEM.


Why?


----------



## Adieu

vilk said:


> Why?



Much like how others hate cops...personal experiences


----------



## TedEH

That's.... baffling?

I can't imagine anything a teacher could do to warrant that kind of hatred that would directly relate to the profession of teaching. Like I've known some terrible teachers, but their issues were their own. I knew one teacher who used to line up elementary students and throw textbooks at them. We've had our fair share of pervy / pedo music and gym teachers. I could easily picture teachers bringing their biases and discrimination into their classrooms. But those, at least in my experience, have been the exceptions and didn't generally have anything to do with the profession.

When you say video lessons, I'm picturing youtube, and that would be a nightmare of an education system. Youtube as a teaching platform has some serious problems that I assume any video-centric-teaching would have. It's not an education platform at it's core - it's a marketing platform. Having your education be entirely driven by marketing, in a setting where success is not driven by how well you've imparted information, but how well you can drive eyeballs and dollars to sponsors, means that you'd be setting up people to be taught all manner of misinformation. For how great it is that the internet has given us vast access to information, it's also given people vast access to "elite experts" who were so full of shit as to be dangerous to their own audiences.

Unless your teachers are murdering people for being the wrong race, I can't understand the cop comparison. And I say that coming from a place that had schools that DID murder people for being the wrong race.



Adieu said:


> I hope they will soon all be replaced by elites


This sentence makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Much like how others hate cops...personal experiences



You were shot by a teacher?


----------



## Demiurge

Adieu might be Roger Waters 

I'm sure in a lot of professions there's a bull-curve-like distribution of competency. The problem is that those in the back end of the curve can cause great harm, whether it be teachers, doctors, cops, politicians, etc. It's fair that if you had negative experiences with the worst of a profession, being informed that they're not all bad is hardly a salve.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Demiurge said:


> Adieu might be Roger Waters
> 
> I'm sure in a lot of professions there's a bull-curve-like distribution of competency. The problem is that those in the back end of the curve can cause great harm, whether it be teachers, doctors, cops, politicians, etc. It's fair that if you had negative experiences with the worst of a profession, being informed that they're not all bad is hardly a salve.



I don't think the hate of teachers is all that baffling, but the proposed replacement is.


----------



## mmr007

MaxOfMetal said:


> You were shot by a teacher?


Not yet....but republicans are working out a way to make that happen


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think the hate of teachers is all that baffling, but the proposed replacement is.



Really? You don't see how a standardized lecture from a high-end professor might be more beneficial than the rants of the usual mixture of dumb-as-bricks ex-marines, thrice-divorced shotgun-toting 4-cat ladies, weird old racists, etc etc etc?


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> Really? You don't see how a standardized lecture from a high-end professor might be more beneficial than the rants of the usual mixture of dumb-as-bricks ex-marines, thrice-divorced shotgun-toting 4-cat ladies, weird old racists, etc etc etc?


You assume a high end elite professor is a benevolent source of education and information. What happens when they aren't and who judges what is high end? Texans and Californians will argue that til the cows come home


----------



## Adieu

mmr007 said:


> You assume a high end elite professor is a benevolent source of education and information. What happens when they aren't and who judges what is high end? Texans and Californians will argue that til the cows come home



Leaving much of the curriculum to video would:

1) add transparency, opening it to parent and peer review
2) provide much more equality of opportunity
3) make it cheaper


----------



## mmr007

How do you learn from a video without interaction?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Really? You don't see how a standardized lecture from a high-end professor might be more beneficial than the rants of the usual mixture of dumb-as-bricks ex-marines, thrice-divorced shotgun-toting 4-cat ladies, weird old racists, etc etc etc?



Nah, that sounds batshit crazy in a whacky libertarian hellscape kind of way. Like a cut scene from a Judge Dregg remake.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think the hate of teachers is all that baffling, but the proposed replacement is.



There's actually some legitimacy to the cop comparison IMO, but it's a critique of the public school system that is heavily based on penal discipline and results in what is now commonly referred to as the "school-to-prison pipeline." That, and there are many (I would say most) adults who cannot even _conceive _of a discipline model that doesn't center around punishment. 

Making matters even worse is we now have the MTSS/Restorative Justice fad going around schools. It's a _great_ idea, but the problem as ever is that there aren't enough staff to implement it correctly and as a result we get the worst of both worlds: no punishments and no restorative justice.

Absolutely nothing in this world is unsullied by capitalism, and as Jim Lahey would say, we can see the results in the fruits of the happenings.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Like a cut scene from a Judge Dregg remake.



Best and most relevant accidental typo TYVM


----------



## /wrists

Adieu said:


> Really? You don't see how a standardized lecture from a high-end professor might be more beneficial than the rants of the usual mixture of dumb-as-bricks ex-marines, thrice-divorced shotgun-toting 4-cat ladies, weird old racists, etc etc etc?


Not sure what this is in reference to, but many 4 year universities will hire professors who also work at the local community college.


----------



## Grindspine

It still baffles me that parents want to arm teachers with firearms, yet do not trust teachers to actually teach their children.

---------------------
But, I digress. Higher education tends to benefit everyone in a society, thus educational opportunities should exist for everyone. That does not mean religious education, unless someone is taking a comparative religions elective.

What we are seeing now though, is a generation of more educated people who are effectively indentured servants to the system. It seems that the current political base wants a majority of uneducated, underfunded, human drones to be their working class.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Grindspine said:


> What we are seeing now though, is a generation of more educated people who are effectively indentured servants to the system. It seems that the current political base wants a majority of uneducated, underfunded, human drones to be their working class.



You can't fool all the people all the time, but if you get enough adults on board you can fool most of an entire generation for long enough that it won't matter by the time they realize what went down.


----------



## Adieu

evade said:


> Not sure what this is in reference to, but many 4 year universities will hire professors who also work at the local community college.



No, I mean like top 10% of Ivies only. Why would you want a video course by a nobody?

I am suggesting that the whole nation needs maybe a dozen K-12 "teachers" per subject.


----------



## narad

Huge fallacy in thinking the "high end" professors from top schools are the best teachers. They're the experts... that doesn't mean they're particularly good at relaying that information to the masses. Usually the opposite.

That said, I'm sure we will transition to some sort of more distributed courses with very careful and professional curation. Doesn't mean fewer teaching jobs or anything, just means more supplemental resources.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Huge fallacy in thinking the "high end" professors from top schools are the best teachers. They're the experts... that doesn't mean they're particularly good at relaying that information to the masses. Usually the opposite.
> 
> That said, I'm sure we will transition to some sort of more distributed courses with very careful and professional curation. Doesn't mean fewer teaching jobs or anything, just means more supplemental resources.



That's why I'm saying top 10% *of* the top 1%

Yes, I'm quite aware there are plenty of rather incompetent instructors who gained their positions through birthright, connections, achievements in research, etc., but there are people who actually know how to teach too.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> That's why I'm saying top 10% *of* the top 1%
> 
> Yes, I'm quite aware there are plenty of rather incompetent instructors who gained their positions through birthright, connections, achievements in research, etc., but there are people who actually know how to teach too.



It doesn't really matter how x% of x% you get. Looking to ivies or any top ranked uni to get the best teachers is weird when they are not hired based on their in-the-classroom performance. You don't hire an indy driver when you want the best taxi, either.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> It doesn't really matter how x% of x% you get. Looking to ivies or any top ranked uni to get the best teachers is weird when they are not hired based on their in-the-classroom performance. You don't hire an indy driver when you want the best taxi, either.



Ok, whatever, use some other 1 in 10k metric.

You know exactly what I mean.

Keep the best one in 10,000, fire the other 9999


----------



## p0ke

sleewell said:


> haven't other countries figured it out by imposing sky high taxes?



Yeah, here in Finland taxes are sky high and education is basically free. Plus study loans are backed by the government and have 0% interest. I still have like ~4k€ left of my mine to pay back because I'm paying the minimum amount each month, no point in paying anything more since it's completely interest free. I could've survived without the loan too, but it just made life much easier at the time.

Also, people over here still complain that studying is not free, as the loans and other benefits apparently aren't enough to live on. Complete bullshit if you ask me, all you gotta do is study somewhere where living doesn't cost an arm and a leg (aka. you can't live in the center of Helsinki).


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Ok, whatever, use some other 1 in 10k metric.
> 
> You know exactly what I mean.
> 
> Keep the best one in 10,000, fire the other 9999


Firing 9999 teachers and getting 1 to make a video series means no one gets a good teacher.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> Firing 9999 teachers and getting 1 to make a video series means no one gets a good teacher.



So same thing as now, but 10k times cheaper?

Yeah that works too

Or any other process that involves complete lustration. Reforming something so rotten must involve banning all current employees from ever working in public education again, or at least a fire-and-rehire process with some major demerit like a points system that wipes out ALL seniority/experience points and then some for having previously been employed by a public school.

(YMMV)

PS it sounds harsh but it has worked wonders for institutional overhauls like police/security service reform in ex-authoritarian states.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I can definitely see that @Adieu had some pretty awful teachers.


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> So same thing as now, but 10k times cheaper?
> 
> Yeah that works too
> 
> Or any other process that involves complete lustration. Reforming something so rotten must involve banning all current employees from ever working in public education again, or at least a fire-and-rehire process with some major demerit like a points system that wipes out ALL seniority/experience points and then some for having previously been employed by a public school.
> 
> (YMMV)


I can't tell if you're an idiot, psychopath, or just hold a grudge.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> I can't tell if you're an idiot, psychopath, or just hold a grudge.


----------



## Adieu

Look, I went to a super-rich public school district. Where a 4th grade teacher asked my 6th grade teacher "for one of your best students" (in an advanced placement classroom!).

TO HELP THE FOURTH GRADERS *READ* THEIR HISTORY TEST. Not write answers, not explain difficult questions... just read them.

It wasn't an ESL class. The illiterate kids weren't foreigners or even minorities.

They were just fucking illiterate upper-middle-class 11 yo rich WASP kids. And there were a lot of them.

I got called up to assist them. That was the fourth year since my first-ever encounter with the English language, btw.


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Look, I went to a super-rich public school district. Where a 4th grade teacher asked my 6th grade teacher "for one of your best students" (in an advanced placement classroom!).
> 
> TO HELP THE FOURTH GRADERS *READ* THEIR HISTORY TEST.
> 
> It wasn't an ESL class. The illiterate kids weren't foreigners or even minorities.
> 
> They were just fucking illiterate upper-middle-class 11 yo rich WASP kids. And there were a lot of them.
> 
> I got called up to assist them. That was the fourth year since my first-ever encounter with the English language, btw.


Look, I went to a super well funded public school in a different country. We had more than 100 teachers and no one was illiterate.

Making kids watch a video lecture instead of engaging with a human isn't going to help them learn to read. It will do the opposite.

Teachers aren't the damn problem.


----------



## narad

So all teachers in the country are terrible because your school sucked? I'd say it was a poor leap of logic, but then again, with what I hear about your school...


----------



## Adieu

No, because according to the metrics, that was an EXCELLENT school.

I don't even want to know what a sucky school is like.

It'd be better to disband them all and start anew.


----------



## narad

I don't know how to reconcile that with my average school not having any such kids, apart from essentially a "slow" class. Unless that anecdote is merely that and wasn't representative of the school as a whole. I mean, you can't have competitive state test scores when a large chunk of students can't read the test.


----------



## thraxil

narad said:


> I don't know how to reconcile that with my average school not having any such kids, apart from essentially a "slow" class.


Yeah, I went to school in a low income mill town in rural Maine in the 80's and 90's. (if you've ever seen the show Trailer Park Boys, I swear they could've filmed that in my home town) Academic and art/music budgets were always being cut and the buildings were decrepit (but the football team had new equipment every year). We were not at the top of any state rankings (except maybe teen pregnancies). We had a lot of really average teachers and a couple spectacularly bad ones (the first time I ever got in trouble to the point where my parents got a letter home was when my fifth grade teacher was telling the class that Mexico was in South America and I was being "disrespectful" for arguing with her). Outside of the special ed class, there were some kids who weren't particularly fast readers or great at comprehension, but I'd be surprised if more than a couple percent were actually "illiterate."


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Leaving much of the curriculum to video would:
> 
> 1) add transparency, opening it to parent and peer review
> 2) provide much more equality of opportunity
> 3) make it cheaper


BEHOLD! We have the prototype for the terrifying future of education, and it is youtube.

May the keepers of knowledge have mercy on our souls, for our education system will not.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> BEHOLD! We have the prototype for the terrifying future of education, and it is youtube.
> 
> May the keepers of knowledge have mercy on our souls, for our education system will not.



K-12 has nothing to do with capital K knowledge

Its job is to prepare proficient functional citizens. Literacy, math, basic skills, "civics" (= intro to law, government, history, and the rules of the land).

And even at that, it fails spectacularly. Kids graduate with honors and have no idea of their legal rights or obligations or how the tax system works.

Srsly? Wtf?


----------



## Grindspine

StevenC said:


> Firing 9999 teachers and getting 1 to make a video series means no one gets a good teacher.


That sounds like what every grocery and department store here has done; firing all the cashiers with one to run a kiosk for ten self-checkout stations. That does not make for better education; it just makes for me having to wait to get carded to buy a bottle of Jameson.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

thraxil said:


> (if you've ever seen the show Trailer Park Boys, I swear they could've filmed that in my home town)



I was just talking with my friend about this the other day, there seems to be a continuum of trailer Park boys viewing that ranges from "ha ha look at these trash people" to "way too fucking real" and leans more toward one or the other following class distinction in the audience

It is pretty apparent when you watch the show with people who did not grow up in the trailerpark or equivalent conditions. just part of why it's such a brilliant show.


----------



## TedEH

In today's comment, brought to you by Raid: Shadow Legends, we'll be asking where, Adieu, did the teacher touch you?
If you liked today's dumb comment, don't forget to smash that like button, and leave your replies below.
Next week, we'll be talking about the top 10 history factoids that traditional schools don't want you to know. Number 7 will shock you.


----------



## Xaios

TedEH said:


> In today's comment, brought to you by Raid: Shadow Legends, we'll be asking where, Adieu, did the teacher touch you?
> If you liked today's dumb comment, don't forget to smash that like button, and leave your replies below.
> Next week, we'll be talking about the top 10 history factoids that traditional schools don't want you to know. Number 7 will shock you.



I feel nothing.


----------



## Adieu

Grindspine said:


> That sounds like what every grocery and department store here has done; firing all the cashiers with one to run a kiosk for ten self-checkout stations. That does not make for better education; it just makes for me having to wait to get carded to buy a bottle of Jameson.



If American public education could EVER be anywhere near as efficient and useful as a fucking grocery store, though...


----------



## Adieu

TedEH said:


> In today's comment, brought to you by Raid: Shadow Legends, we'll be asking where, Adieu, did the teacher touch you?
> If you liked today's dumb comment, don't forget to smash that like button, and leave your replies below.
> Next week, we'll be talking about the top 10 history factoids that traditional schools don't want you to know. Number 7 will shock you.



Nope

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, there ARE other ways to generate long-standing grudges that don't involve penises


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> If American public education could EVER be anywhere near as efficient and useful as a fucking grocery store, though...


I don't know. Here we have no cashiers and the stores are inefficient, but we have plenty of teachers (literally too many, most go abroad) and a great education system.


----------



## Grindspine

Adieu said:


> If American public education could EVER be anywhere near as efficient and useful as a fucking grocery store, though...


Grocery stores are hella ineffecient, especially post-covid. No stores around here seem to be able to fill vacant spots for cashiers, so all are being replaced by self-checkout kiosks. Like I said, that may be efficient for picking up a loaf of bread, but if you want to purchase alcohol, you still have to wait for the one human cashier to come over and interact. This ends up being quite inefficient, and yet another reason to skip the grocery store and go straight to the liquor store.

Anyway, student loans suck. My wife has hers paid off, but despite working for volunteer organizations, non-profit hospitals, and public service, I still owe many years' worth of payments on mine. As said previously, education benefits everyone in a society. Frankly, I call bullshit on SCOTUS allowing public education funds to go toward religious education while I am still paying my student loans. My education actually benefits society in some way. I cannot say the same for religious education degrees.


----------



## JSanta

Grindspine said:


> Grocery stores are hella ineffecient, especially post-covid. No stores around here seem to be able to fill vacant spots for cashiers, so all are being replaced by self-checkout kiosks. Like I said, that may be efficient for picking up a loaf of bread, but if you want to purchase alcohol, you still have to wait for the one human cashier to come over and interact. This ends up being quite inefficient, and yet another reason to skip the grocery store and go straight to the liquor store.
> 
> Anyway, student loans suck. My wife has hers paid off, but despite working for volunteer organizations, non-profit hospitals, and public service, I still owe many years' worth of payments on mine. As said previously, education benefits everyone in a society. Frankly, I call bullshit on SCOTUS allowing public education funds to go toward religious education while I am still paying my student loans. My education actually benefits society in some way. I cannot say the same for religious education degrees.



I think that's an area that bothers me most. I hear arguments from conservative family members that "well, you decided to go to school, that's your problem", but because of my education and experience, as well as my wife, we pay more annually in Federal and State income taxes than they do over the course of several years. Getting a degree (especially in the case of my medical professional wife) benefits society as a whole in many cases. The contribution to society is often overlooked, regardless of profession. If I was put in charge of making decisions, federal student loans should be automatically expunged after paying taxes for 10 years (talking for those that can work, not those that have become disabled or have similar extenuating circumstances). Employed individuals are paying back into the system, even if in a nominal way. 

There are of course other serious problems with the higher education system in this country. I adjunct at a local top 100 university, and the cost to attend is obscene (and for the record, my pay for each course is less than the credit hours each student is paying to be in the class). But so is nearly every other 4 year university.


----------



## jaxadam

JSanta said:


> If I was



If I _were…_

I mean, education thread and all…


----------



## JSanta

jaxadam said:


> If I _were…_
> 
> I mean, education thread and all…


I said what I said!


----------



## wheresthefbomb

jaxadam said:


> If I _were…_
> 
> I mean, education thread and all…



well ACKSHUALLY.....


...prescriptive grammar is seen as less and less valid these days, especially among linguists. Language is inherently in constant flux, and variations in usage are the absolute norm for as far back as we can see. Everything we now consider "proper" or "correct" was at one time "not." 

Not to mention, presctiptivism very often ends up justify biases that run along class and ethnic lines. For example, AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is a perfectly valid language form. It has internally consistent grammatical rules that allow for the creation of new, intelligible (to other speakers of AAVE) forms. This is a very very basic overview of some pretty in depth concepts but the TL;DR here is:

Descriptive Grammar is _in; _Say as thou wilst shall be the whole of the law.


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> Descriptive Grammar is _in; _Say as thou wilst shall be the whole of the law.


Oh, THIS is a whole can o' worms...  

I think descriptive grammar has its place and time. Dialogue, in fiction, for example, 100%. Capture speech patterns as accurately as you can. 

In a more formal communication setting, though.... as you alude, there are some ingrained class biases present in prescriptive grammar in that it's taking a stance on elevating one grammatical norm over another, so there's some implicit filtering going on there in choosing which particular grammatical norms are "right" and which aren't. That IS absolutely something worth flagging as a concern. But, it's also not something that any one person, or even realistically any one very large group of people, can change overnight, so simply opting out and going 100% descriptive all the time isn't really all that viable an answer. 

I think the best you can do is be aware of when you're choosing to be prescriptive and when you're choosing to be descriptive, to make it a _conscious_ choice, and do so with a great degree of intent. I tend to lean towards prescriptive anyway, for reasons that probably do have a lot to do with race, class, educational attainment, and upbringing (and the fact I was a voracious reader as a kid), and my own personal hill to die on is proper grammar and sentence structure in text messages, but I absolutely relax my grammar in social situations, particularly those where I don't necessarily want to flag myself as someone who identifies with the sort of class and racial assumptions that are baked into prescriptive grammar, whereas in professional and more formal environments, I 100% lean into prescriptive grammatical norms. 

This is doubly true in the internet - people, when they know nothing else about you, will tend to make certain assumptions about race, class, educational attainment, etc etc etc based on how you use language. If you think about it, that's actually _incredibly_ powerful, with respect to how that shapes other people's impressions of you over the internet, where a lot of the other social cues that might come into play here are entirely lacking.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> Oh, THIS is a whole can o' worms...
> 
> I think descriptive grammar has its place and time. Dialogue, in fiction, for example, 100%. Capture speech patterns as accurately as you can.
> 
> In a more formal communication setting, though.... as you alude, there are some ingrained class biases present in prescriptive grammar in that it's taking a stance on elevating one grammatical norm over another, so there's some implicit filtering going on there in choosing which particular grammatical norms are "right" and which aren't. That IS absolutely something worth flagging as a concern. But, it's also not something that any one person, or even realistically any one very large group of people, can change overnight, so simply opting out and going 100% descriptive all the time isn't really all that viable an answer.
> 
> I think the best you can do is be aware of when you're choosing to be prescriptive and when you're choosing to be descriptive, to make it a _conscious_ choice, and do so with a great degree of intent. I tend to lean towards prescriptive anyway, for reasons that probably do have a lot to do with race, class, educational attainment, and upbringing (and the fact I was a voracious reader as a kid), and my own personal hill to die on is proper grammar and sentence structure in text messages, but I absolutely relax my grammar in social situations, particularly those where I don't necessarily want to flag myself as someone who identifies with the sort of class and racial assumptions that are baked into prescriptive grammar, whereas in professional and more formal environments, I 100% lean into prescriptive grammatical norms.
> 
> This is doubly true in the internet - people, when they know nothing else about you, will tend to make certain assumptions about race, class, educational attainment, etc etc etc based on how you use language. If you think about it, that's actually _incredibly_ powerful, with respect to how that shapes other people's impressions of you over the internet, where a lot of the other social cues that might come into play here are entirely lacking.



Oh I totally agree with you, I see that as more of a sociology thing though.

There is no logical or factual basis for saying one way of speaking is more "correct" than another. We also have to be able to understand each other though, so there's a push and pull between prescriptivism and all-out linguistic anarchism. We have an infinitely malleable language, but we also have to have broad, mutually-established baseline understanding of which words mean what.

I will be the first to admit that I am regularly in knee-jerk mode to unnecessarily strict prescriptivism, and in this particular case was playing the foil to @jaxadam 's tongue in cheek 8th grade grammar teacher routine.


----------



## bostjan

Meh, do your best with grammar and spelling, because it get's your point across better. Otherwise, don't sweat it. As long as you were understood the way you wanted to be understood, why waste more effort than necessary?

I had all of those grammar rules drilled into my head, and it tends to make me sound more like an unrelatable douche when I actually use the grammar I learned as a kid. I love words like "whence" and "whom" and conditional tense and all of those nifty things, but no one talks like that in the 21st century.


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> Oh I totally agree with you, I see that as more of a sociology thing though.
> 
> There is no logical or factual basis for saying one way of speaking is more "correct" than another. We also have to be able to understand each other though, so there's a push and pull between prescriptivism and all-out linguistic anarchism. We have an infinitely malleable language, but we also have to have broad, mutually-established baseline understanding of which words mean what.
> 
> I will be the first to admit that I am regularly in knee-jerk mode to unnecessarily strict prescriptivism, and in this particular case was playing the foil to @jaxadam 's tongue in cheek 8th grade grammar teacher routine.


Well, the natural postmodern conclusion here is, if there is a constructed structure in place, then it should be played with.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> Well, the natural postmodern conclusion here is, if there is a constructed structure in place, then it should be played with.



Now you're speaking my language!


----------



## MFB

wheresthefbomb said:


> Now you're speaking my language!



I don't know how to break it to you, but every one of Drew's posts have been in English for as long as I've been a member here; I think it's safe to say he's _been_ speaking it


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> I don't know how to break it to you, but every one of Drew's posts have been in English for as long as I've been a member here; I think it's safe to say he's _been_ speaking it


You forgot to end your sentence with a period.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> You forgot to end your sentence with a period.



Real reply: it's a by-product of jumping between emails/Teams chats/shitposting on here for cheap jokes like the aforementioned, but I did indeed not actually end the sentence by missing the period.

Fake reply:


----------



## jaxadam

What in the fucking fuck just happened up in this motherfucking motherfucker?


----------



## Mathemagician

Adieu is advocating for the privatization of education.

His logic is inherently flawed because it pretends to look at the “cost” of educating a population.

Elevating a society is the purpose of a functioning developed government. Education is one manner in which that happens. And almost no child learns from a computer screen better than in-person hands on questions and answers.

The logic is flawed from the get-go which makes it purposely hard to think about the bigger picture.

There’s two points: standardizing k-12 education topics? Makes sense citizens of a country should learn the same building blocks, not counting electives. For example Texas shouldn’t be able to write out the trail of tears from their history books. Americans should learn about the cool stuff and the not so cool stuff, etc.

However, reducing in-person learning and access to professionals due to a misguided lack of respect for their school/degree?

Ok so in that case only the richest out there would have access to in person education and coaching.

Which is actually a SUPER libertarian “destroy the government and all its programs” talking point.

The game plan is essentially “make education cheaper and worse, so my kid has a better shot against the poors.” And in the meantime privatize every aspect you can to get donations as you sell off the education system to for-profit fake schools backed by the Devos family. Currently under multiple lawsuits. They also take to shitting on teachers as a whole and trying to make them seem ungrateful/bad/awful any way possible - like his generic non answers on the topic.

Now there are many ways on how to improve education, but starting at “how do I make it cheaper” is not the approach. It’s not a for-profit business. It’s a public service, it costs what it costs.

The correct approach of “How do I make it better” typically involves investing MORE into a program. Which is the opposite of what most conservative/libertarian leaning people want to see. So they push “starve the beast” policy.


----------



## Grindspine

JSanta said:


> I think that's an area that bothers me most. I hear arguments from conservative family members that "well, you decided to go to school, that's your problem", but because of my education and experience, as well as my wife, we pay more annually in Federal and State income taxes than they do over the course of several years. Getting a degree (especially in the case of my medical professional wife) benefits society as a whole in many cases. The contribution to society is often overlooked, regardless of profession. If I was put in charge of making decisions, federal student loans should be automatically expunged after paying taxes for 10 years (talking for those that can work, not those that have become disabled or have similar extenuating circumstances). Employed individuals are paying back into the system, even if in a nominal way.
> 
> There are of course other serious problems with the higher education system in this country. I adjunct at a local top 100 university, and the cost to attend is obscene (and for the record, my pay for each course is less than the credit hours each student is paying to be in the class). But so is nearly every other 4 year university.


Payment of taxes being applied toward student loan repayment is an idea with merit! 


wheresthefbomb said:


> well ACKSHUALLY.....
> 
> 
> ...prescriptive grammar is seen as less and less valid these days, especially among linguists. Language is inherently in constant flux, and variations in usage are the absolute norm for as far back as we can see. Everything we now consider "proper" or "correct" was at one time "not."
> 
> Not to mention, presctiptivism very often ends up justify biases that run along class and ethnic lines. For example, AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is a perfectly valid language form. It has internally consistent grammatical rules that allow for the creation of new, intelligible (to other speakers of AAVE) forms. This is a very very basic overview of some pretty in depth concepts but the TL;DR here is:
> 
> Descriptive Grammar is _in; _Say as thou wilst shall be the whole of the law.


Or as my linguistics professor had stated, "Language is by consensus".

Away from the semantic side of the thread watching news reports earlier today has me very concerned for the nation as a whole. What the populace really needs currently is an education in critical thinking with a focus on choosing sources wisely.


----------



## nightflameauto

Grindspine said:


> Away from the semantic side of the thread watching news reports earlier today has me very concerned for the nation as a whole. What the populace really needs currently is an education in critical thinking with a focus on choosing sources wisely.


We've spent forty-plus years trying to STOP critical thinking. No reason to reverse course now.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Grindspine said:


> What the populace really needs currently is an education in critical thinking with a focus on choosing sources wisely.





nightflameauto said:


> We've spent forty-plus years trying to STOP critical thinking. No reason to reverse course now.



I had two teachers who made an overt, concerted effort to teach critical thinking skills, my freshman Earth Science teacher and my Junior American Lit/Speech&Debate teacher. Not to say all of my other teachers were terrible, but they weren't trying to help us learn how to _think _for the most part.

Those two teachers, especially Earth Science, made absolutely incalculable contributions to my ability to think for myself. They're a big part of why I want to work in schools, knowing from personal experience how much difference just one adult with the right message at the right time can make.


----------



## nightflameauto

wheresthefbomb said:


> I had two teachers who made an overt, concerted effort to teach critical thinking skills, my freshman Earth Science teacher and my Junior American Lit/Speech&Debate teacher. Not to say all of my other teachers were terrible, but they weren't trying to help us learn how to _think _for the most part.
> 
> Those two teachers, especially Earth Science, made absolutely incalculable contributions to my ability to think for myself. They're a big part of why I want to work in schools, knowing from personal experience how much difference just one adult with the right message at the right time can make.


I had a couple teachers that were that way as well, and one old, near retiring, orchestra director. Those folks stick with me in the best of ways, and I remind myself all the time that if they could do it, after decades of facing inarticulate and sometimes obstinate students, I can do it too.

Now, I had more than a few that were very, VERY much in the "memorize the shit in the book and stfu the rest of the time" vein, where if you dared to try to extrapolate the lesson into something practical, they'd not just chide you for it, but outright scold you for wasting time. So, yeah, I'm glad I had the good ones around to show me how things could be.

I also had a grandfather on one side that prized self-educating. He was a farmer, but may be one of the most well-read people you'd ever meet. And he had a way with people. I swear he could get a salesman to actually follow through on their empty promises, he was so good at convincing people of things. 

Nothing he liked better, even in his final days, than somebody bringing him a book he'd never read before, especially if it was a science, history, or general knowledge type of book. I'm much the same way, and have been my whole life, mostly thanks to him and the quest for knowledge my two good teachers instilled in me.


----------



## TedEH

Could there be a counter-argument that it's ok for your taxes to go towards that, since having educated people around is of benefit to everyone? Jeebus knows taxes go to much worse places all the time.


----------



## CanserDYI

TedEH said:


> Could there be a counter-argument that it's ok for your taxes to go towards that, since having educated people around is of benefit to everyone? Jeebus knows taxes go to much worse places all the time.


*Cough cough* US military spending half the nations student loan debt YEARLY *cough cough*


----------



## TedEH

Aaaaaaand the comment I had been replying to is gone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## sleewell

well he just forgave $10k if you make less than 125,000 and kicked the can down the road again on making payments. 

seems really dumb to me but what do i know. admit the loans are bad to the point where we need to forgive balances but then just keep making the loans as if everything is fine?!? that is the definition of stupidity. doesn't really fix anything, doesn't change anything - just an hollow ploy to get some votes while breaking an already broken system even more.


----------



## Drew

I mean, that's kind of been my issue all along - student loan forgiveness, even in part, without some sort of rethinking of college affordability or lending to go around with it is just prioritizing the economic interests of the current generation of relatively recent grads over future graduates. Sure, it's probably better than not doing anything, and there's a certain element of following through on campaign platforms that's in play here, but it doesn't really do much to fix thelonger term issues. 

I guess you could fairly argue that recent, say millenial-and-later college grads have gotten fucked in ways prior generations haven't, I suppose, with the fact they entered the labor force just in time for or in the aftermath of the Great Recession and graduated into a period of stagnent middle class wages in ways that would have made pretty much any debt burden uniquely burdensome, but still...


----------



## Glades

I would have rather spent they $300B in our inner-cities schools. Help those kids that don’t have a fighting chance in life to make it out of poverty. Give them the proper tools to pursue a career. There are millions of children that graduate high school in this country and are functionally illiterate.
Why can’t this be a bipartisan issue to tackle together as a nation. What is the interest of the federal government in keeping this horrendous status quo.
We also need to change the mindset nationwide. Not everyone needs a college degree. There is good careers to be had in trades. I have a bachelors and masters degree and make 6 figures, but also know many tradesmen with high school education that make triple what I make.
Edit: Not to mention the exorbitant price of a college education. And the fact that they give loans to children. That is a different problem altogether.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Why can’t this be a bipartisan issue to tackle together as a nation.


Ask Betsy DeVos. Republicans hate public education because it creates people too smart to vote for them.


----------



## /wrists

i'm with you on that 

a lot of people say "investment" but a lot of other people forget about "failed investments" and how most investments are failed

I didn't agree to pay for someone else's women gender studies courses

It's not about politics. It's a quick fix and it doesn't fix anything for future generations to come. 

I almost wanted to say I don't know how they could make such a backwards solution and then I remembered the government in general.


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, I think it's kinda bullshit that a lot of the post-boomer generations were led to believe that college is the only way to succeed. Meanwhile, it seems like a lot of that generation were able to get jobs right out of high school that could support a family and mortgage.

But yes, while I'm for student loan forgiveness, I agree that there needs to be a MAJOR overhaul of the lending system to go along with it. Otherwise, it's just a quick fix that will mean nothing in a few years.

That said, the GOP kinda needs to shut the fuck up, because they had no problem bailing out banks, motor companies, etc. But fuck the little guy, right?


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> Ask Betsy DeVos. Republicans hate public education because it creates people too smart to vote for them.


I lost brain cells just reading this. I’ve had enough internet for one day.


----------



## narad

evade said:


> i'm with you on that
> 
> a lot of people say "investment" but a lot of other people forget about "failed investments" and how most investments are failed
> 
> I didn't agree to pay for someone else's women gender studies courses



I didn't agree to bomb people in Afghanistan but I roll with it.


----------



## Adieu

Ah I fucking hate it


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

"you knew what you were doing you were an adult when you took the loans"

I didn't. None of my friends did. We were told, don't think just do what you have to do to get through college and you'll get a job. When you're a teenager you listen to your parents and teachers and adults who have life experience because they know more than you. I'm lucky I got a job that allows me to pay them back, but I know people with engineering degrees who couldn't get a job after graduation and are doing something random to get by. Nothing is guaranteed. So fuck off with your "gender studies" bs you absolute heartless nutfaces. -sincerely, someone who makes >125k/yr and had no loans forgiven.

"hurr durr handout"

They give handouts to banks, airlines, military contractors, etc. etc. every year or so. Then people get fired anyway, the rich get richer, and that's just dandy I guess. American dream.

"this doesn't fix the underlying problem"

Well obviously it doesn't, but it is cool to remove the victims from the burning building before the fire department shows up. No need to keep people suffering unnecessarily while congress sits on its ass doing nothing or getting stonewalled by republicans. *And in case anyone saying this didn't read the frickin release, they revamped the repayment schemes so actually this does make steps toward addressing the underlying problem please read instead of blindly listening to Fox News.*


----------



## Grindspine

wheresthefbomb said:


> I had two teachers who made an overt, concerted effort to teach critical thinking skills, my freshman Earth Science teacher and my Junior American Lit/Speech&Debate teacher. Not to say all of my other teachers were terrible, but they weren't trying to help us learn how to _think _for the most part.
> 
> Those two teachers, especially Earth Science, made absolutely incalculable contributions to my ability to think for myself. They're a big part of why I want to work in schools, knowing from personal experience how much difference just one adult with the right message at the right time can make.


I had a few teachers like that. I now work as a clinical liaison between the lab where I work and the university lab program. I just started training some medical school students for the third year. I figure that teaching the skills to troubleshoot in the laboratory will benefit those students and medicine in this state for years to come. Additionally, I had the opportunity to train a dermatologist in some lab techniques before he moves back to his home country in central Asia. If all goes well, the skills that I was able to pass on to him will allow him to cure hundreds to thousands of skin cancer cases in his home country.


sleewell said:


> well he just forgave $10k if you make less than 125,000 and kicked the can down the road again on making payments.
> 
> seems really dumb to me but what do i know. admit the loans are bad to the point where we need to forgive balances but then just keep making the loans as if everything is fine?!? that is the definition of stupidity. doesn't really fix anything, doesn't change anything - just an hollow ploy to get some votes while breaking an already broken system even more.


Reading the white house press release, there is talk of holding schools accountable for both keeping tuition costs from increasing as rapidly as they have been and ensuring employability of graduates. Just forgiving loans would be a band-aid fix. The rising costs of schools, with massive budgets going straight into the pockets of board members, is one of the biggest problems. Here in Indiana, Mitch Daniels left political office to be president of Purdue University, where board members that he put into place while governor pretty much let him make all decisions. He was able to politically manipulate schools for the last decade, including splitting former IPFW and IUPUI campuses to make IU and Purdue schools separate.

A good parallel though is healthcare. During the Obama administration, there was so much talk of who is paying for medicine rather than eliminating the hospital boards where local politicians and business owners were making decisions in hospital business. An unfortunate example is that in Fort Wayne, Chuck Surack of Sweetwater was on the board of directors for Lutheran Hospital, despite having no medical expertise. Having worked both in medicine and in the music industry, that relationship still astounds me.




> Ask Betsy DeVos. Republicans hate public education because it creates people too smart to vote for them.



Yeah, I still cannot believe that the former administration was able to put someone who is anti-education at the head of the department of education.

On a personal note, I have three college degrees, (associate of arts, bachelor of arts, certificate from IU school of medicine), and have made very little headway on the total debt because of capitalized interest. I got my A.A. degree right before the market crash and my B.A. right after. It took years for my wife (who also has a B.A) and I to actually establish careers that paid above poverty level. At one point, she had an internship through AmeriCorps. She was literally told that as a paid service intern, it would probably be in her best interest to get onto a food stamp program. There was a point where she and I, with multiple college degrees, were scraping by with that little.

I do not imagine student loans will ever be entirely forgiven for everyone, but at this point I only have four years of ten necessary working for non-profit organizations to be eligible for public service loan forgiveness. Finishing school and searching for jobs, only to realize a year or two later that your budget will have you paying loans 'til retirement is nothing short of depressing.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> I didn't agree to bomb people in Afghanistan but I roll with it.


I don't agree with it either, but not even my votes would change anything about it. We roll with it because we can't do anything about it and also the fact that most of us pretend that committing atrocities against other human beings is a "matter of national security". 

I suppose that's the idea of this thread is to share thoughts, not actually promote change since it's just a thread on a guitar forum. My thoughts are that I'm against this specific instance of debt forgiveness. Whether or not you think education or healthcare or whatever should be free, the concept of forgiving someones' debts over only a limited amount of time does not motivate future generations to study or pay their debts either.

If I saw this shit happen while I was in high school, I would get a pretty twisted idea (as high schoolers do with easily impressionable minds) that you don't have to work hard and still be compensated.

Here is a thought, anyways, maybe it's not accurate, but maybe it is. Those in STEM fields probably were able to pay back their debts during their career.

The debt forgiveness where we (American citizens) had once paid in taxes were probably reallocated for those who got non-relevant degrees, like music or philosophy. Now that is an extremely biased and opinionated thought, but probably shared by many. Remember how biased this is and how illogical it is and how it might not sit well with yourself or others.

Now think about how illogical it is that some people had to pay their debts and some don't.


----------



## LordCashew

Drew said:


> I guess you could fairly argue that recent, say millenial-and-later college grads have gotten fucked in ways prior generations haven't, I suppose, with the fact they entered the labor force just in time for or in the aftermath of the Great Recession and graduated into a period of stagnent middle class wages in ways that would have made pretty much any debt burden uniquely burdensome, but still...


Not to mention that along with the stagnant wages, the price of even state schools has skyrocketed. The cost of tuition in the CSU system basically doubled in the window of time between me paying attention and me being able to go.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> "you knew what you were doing you were an adult when you took the loans"
> 
> I didn't. None of my friends did. We were told, don't think just do what you have to do to get through college and you'll get a job. When you're a teenager you listen to your parents and teachers and adults who have life experience because they know more than you. I'm lucky I got a job that allows me to pay them back, but I know people with engineering degrees who couldn't get a job after graduation and are doing something random to get by. Nothing is guaranteed. So fuck off with your "gender studies" bs you absolute heartless nutfaces. -sincerely, someone who makes >125k/yr and had no loans forgiven.
> 
> "hurr durr handout"
> 
> They give handouts to banks, airlines, military contractors, etc. etc. every year or so. Then people get fired anyway, the rich get richer, and that's just dandy I guess. American dream.
> 
> "this doesn't fix the underlying problem"
> 
> Well obviously it doesn't, but it is cool to remove the victims from the burning building before the fire department shows up. No need to keep people suffering unnecessarily while congress sits on its ass doing nothing or getting stonewalled by republicans. *And in case anyone saying this didn't read the frickin release, they revamped the repayment schemes so actually this does make steps toward addressing the underlying problem please read instead of blindly listening to Fox News.*


Okay so you listened to your parents who should have had their best interests in you. Perhaps they were misinformed. You followed their advice and had to pay back your debts. That's expected.

But you're also not the main character. There are plenty of people in the military who sign away their lives at 18 without knowing it. Teenager. Listening to those around them or maybe watched Top Gun and was inspired. What do we do about that? Sure, it's not 10 grand, it's just their lives. But your parents and the adults around you or around your friends should have told their children the full picture. Going to college doesn't automatically guarantee a job or career. That's entitlement.



I paid my loans and I didn't have it forgiven and yes, I'm a heartless nutface that I expect others to as well.

Instead of revamping the repayment schemes, they should've made it consistent and let everyone else partaking in higher education have 10 grand in education instead of fucking over just a few. Other people will be on fire too. We just say fuck those people?

What about the people who were on fire and found a way out through the "system" that was in place? Good job, but fuck you too?


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> Here is a thought, anyways, maybe it's not accurate, but maybe it is. Those in STEM fields probably were able to pay back their debts during their career.


I work in a not-for-profit university medical laboratory. I would have six more years to go to qualify for public student loan forgiveness. It has taken ten years since finishing my last degree to actually establish my place in this as a career. Additionally, I am also dealing with work-related injury due to the repetitive nature of the work. I have been put at a point this year where I have to decide between shoulder surgery or leaving a job that can be used toward loan forgiveness. If you've not been in that situation, I can tell you that it sucks.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We always have money for foreign wars, corporate bailouts, and tax breaks for the mind numbingly wealthy, but never seem to have more than a nickel or dime for regular folks. Wonder how that works.


----------



## /wrists

Grindspine said:


> I work in a not-for-profit university medical laboratory. I would have six more years to go to qualify for public student loan forgiveness. It has taken ten years since finishing my last degree to actually establish my place in this as a career. Additionally, I am also dealing with work-related injury due to the repetitive nature of the work. I have been put at a point this year where I have to decide between shoulder surgery or leaving a job that can be used toward loan forgiveness. If you've not been in that situation, I can tell you that it sucks.


I'm not in that position, but are you in a not-for-profit position for the money? If you have the skills to work elsewhere and make more, then you could've during earlier years. 

Not sure what your situation is and I don't mean to be cold or heartless, but were any of these events forced on to you or is the situation self-induced?


----------



## /wrists

MaxOfMetal said:


> We always have money for foreign wars, corporate bailouts, and tax breaks for the mind numbingly wealthy, but never seem to have more than a nickel or dime for regular folks. Wonder how that works.


I mean in this case it looks like we had money to forgive some loans. 

The mind numbingly wealthy have deep ties to Congress and other elected officials. That's how it works. 

So is the government absolutely bad or absolutely good? Is it more bad than it is good or more good than it is bad?


----------



## /wrists

TedEH said:


> Could there be a counter-argument that it's ok for your taxes to go towards that, since having educated people around is of benefit to everyone? Jeebus knows taxes go to much worse places all the time.


I am well aware that taxes go to much worse, but it shouldn't be a competition on how we can misappropriate tax funds. 

Define educated. Is that limited to a classroom environment?


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> I'm not in that position, but are you in a not-for-profit position for the money? If you have the skills to work elsewhere and make more, then you could've during earlier years.
> 
> Not sure what your situation is and I don't mean to be cold or heartless, but were any of these events forced on to you or is the situation self-induced?


That question is rather vague. We all make choices. I did not choose the financial situation of the family into which I was born. I did not choose for the three biggest tuition hikes in history to hit right when I was going to college. I did not choose to live in the rust belt as a kid. 

If my family had more money, I would have attended a west coast school and probably had a very different college career and subsequent life.

I, like most other people with student debt, have made what seemed like the best choices at the times when those choices had to be made. If given the choice between working for a non-profit or paying student loans until retirement, then yes, I am choosing, as long as I am able, to work for a non-profit and try to qualify for the loan forgiveness. You may be missing the intent though. Public service does not always pay as much as private sector work; it is considered to be for the good of society. If the government can encourage people to work in public service with the promise of student loan forgiveness, that makes a net benefit for society.

That all being said, I do not expect a hand-out. However, if the supreme court is saying it is okay for tax-exempt religious schools to receive public funds, then you can bet sure as fuck that I expect some of that can go toward the loans that allow me to perform high complexity procedures in a medical lab that potentially save lives.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

evade said:


> I mean in this case it looks like we had money to forgive some loans.
> 
> The mind numbingly wealthy have deep ties to Congress and other elected officials. That's how it works.
> 
> So is the government absolutely bad or absolutely good? Is it more bad than it is good or more good than it is bad?



Yeah, we looked under the couch cushions and found some spare change. Our GDP is nearly $21 trillion dollars vs. a one time scrubbing (not payout, just deleting debt) of $32 billion.

That's 15% of 1%. 

The government is a net good, but what we spend big money on is completely out of whack. 

Having more educated and fewer in debt is also a net good. 

What do you do for a living? Do make stuff? Do you perform a service? Do you work for a person or organization that does? Because canceling debt makes available millions and billions of dollars in the economy and that's also a net good. 

I went to college, got a degree, paid off my loans (which were a LOT more reasonable back then), and now don't even use said degree working in manufacturing. Blue collar. 

But I'm still for loan debt forgiveness, especially for folks impacting by changing job markets, financial downturns, and those scammed by for-profit degree mills. 

If the only hang up you have is emotional, then that's sort of your problem. 

Like I said, if you live in America, you're probably going to benefit from this happening.


----------



## /wrists

Grindspine said:


> That question is rather vague. We all make choices. I did not choose the financial situation of the family into which I was born. I did not choose for the three biggest tuition hikes in history to hit right when I was going to college. I did not choose to live in the rust belt as a kid.
> 
> If my family had more money, I would have attended a west coast school and probably had a very different college career and subsequent life.
> 
> I, like most other people with student debt, have made what seemed like the best choices at the times when those choices had to be made. If given the choice between working for a non-profit or paying student loans until retirement, then yes, I am choosing, as long as I am able, to work for a non-profit and try to qualify for the loan forgiveness. You may be missing the intent though. Public service does not always pay as much as private sector work; it is considered to be for the good of society. If the government can encourage people to work in public service with the promise of student loan forgiveness, that makes a net benefit for society.
> 
> That all being said, I do not expect a hand-out. However, if the supreme court is saying it is okay for tax-exempt religious schools to receive public funds, then you can bet sure as fuck that I expect some of that can go toward the loans that allow me to perform high complexity procedures in a medical lab that potentially save lives.


It is vague because it gives you an opportunity to answer it with the details. 

No one got to choose, but everyone gets to express their concerns and frustrations and we should strive to be better. 

I also agree with you. I like most other people who have student debt, have also made what seemed like the best choices at the times when those choices had to be made. 

I am definitely not missing the intent. I know that private sector pays more than public, but it would appear that your view is subjected to your own human experience, for instance thinking that public service is considered to be the good of society etc. 

You could work in the private sector, make back your student debt and more, become more competitive and drive your own innovations further. These can also be considered good for society if you're able to innovate or publicize the works you've done in the private sector. 

If you can achieve monumental success or acquire wealth through said innovations, you could very well return a net benefit for society. I mean, even paying your taxes is technically considered a net benefit for society. 

You can achieve more both personally, professionally, and socially in the private sector. (Hypothetically) 


That being said I don't expect you to expect a hand-out.


----------



## narad

The Atlas Shrugged is strong in this thread.


----------



## /wrists

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, we looked under the couch cushions and found some spare change. Our GDP is nearly $21 trillion dollars vs. a one time scrubbing (not payout, just deleting debt) of $32 billion.
> 
> That's 15% of 1%.
> 
> The government is a net good, but what we spend big money on is completely out of whack.
> 
> Having more educated and fewer in debt is also a net good.
> 
> What do you do for a living? Do make stuff? Do you perform a service? Do you work for a person or organization that does? Because canceling debt makes available millions and billions of dollars in the economy and that's also a net good.
> 
> I went to college, got a degree, paid off my loans (which were a LOT more reasonable back then), and now don't even use said degree working in manufacturing. Blue collar.
> 
> But I'm still for loan debt forgiveness, especially for folks impacting by changing job markets, financial downturns, and those scammed by for-profit degree mills.
> 
> If the only hang up you have is emotional, then that's sort of your problem.
> 
> Like I said, if you live in America, you're probably going to benefit from this happening.


We found some spare change and chose to do what some people would interpret as an objective good it seems.

Having more educated and fewer in debt is a net good at the cost of additional inflation hikes that will undoubtedly come from this.

Okay so canceling debt is a net good, then why doesn't the government cancel everyone's mortgage? Cancel all debt from financial institutions.

The hang up I have isn't just emotional, it is logically inconsistent. Some people paid their debts. Others didn't. Others will still have to. Same system.

I'm in America, let's see if I benefit from it. Only time will tell.

By the way, I paid for my loans in this seemingly unreasonable time and so did a majority of our alumni. We all had our struggles, but goddamn if we knew it would've paid to be a degenerate instead....

We still probably wouldn't have been one. If I could get just 10K in tax refunds or credits that could be claimed over time in the future, I'll shut the fuck up. My student loans were well over 10K and I still paid them off over the course of years where I had to live conservatively.

If I had 10K to spend as stimulus money, I would spend it. Probably most of us on this forum. You know this.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> The Atlas Shrugged is strong in this thread.


Never read the book and won't claim I know the reference. Looked up potential implications, but don't want to assume so perhaps you could elaborate.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

Evade, you gotta start thinking a little harder man.



evade said:


> Okay so you listened to your parents who should have had their best interests in you. Perhaps they were misinformed. You followed their advice and had to pay back your debts. That's expected.
> 
> But you're also not the main character. There are plenty of people in the military who sign away their lives at 18 without knowing it. Teenager. Listening to those around them or maybe watched Top Gun and was inspired. What do we do about that? Sure, it's not 10 grand, it's just their lives. But your parents and the adults around you or around your friends should have told their children the full picture. Going to college doesn't automatically guarantee a job or career. That's entitlement.



We do the same thing. We give them what they're owed by the VA rather than cutting its funding. This is not a gotcha, everyone I know supports helping kids who were doing their best to make their way when they were young but got screwed by propaganda.



evade said:


> We found some spare change and chose to do what some people would interpret as an objective good it seems.
> 
> Having more educated and fewer in debt is a net good at the cost of additional inflation hikes that will undoubtedly come from this.
> 
> Okay so canceling debt is a net good, then why doesn't the government cancel everyone's mortgage? Cancel all debt from financial institutions.
> 
> The hang up I have isn't just emotional, it is logically inconsistent. Some people paid their debts. Others didn't. Others will still have to. Same system.
> 
> I'm in America, let's see if I benefit from it. Only time will tell.



Where's the inflation from the bailouts? Andy why is that inherently different from the MUCH SMALLER dollar amount being forgiven?

Mortgages have been government subsidized for like 70 years, man. Debt is not all the same, but student loan debt was never intended to be a money-making scheme despite how it ended up.

The ladder has been pulled up behind the boomers for the most part. "I suffered so others should too" is a mentality that matches fairly well to your avatar and helps absolutely no one, though I'm guessing you would like helping absolutely no one so I don't think this will be a convincing argument.


----------



## narad

evade said:


> If I saw this shit happen while I was in high school, I would get a pretty twisted idea (as high schoolers do with easily impressionable minds) that you don't have to work hard and still be compensated.



I mean, do you have this thought now, or does it take a stupid HS level brain to reach this conclusion? Should we change policy based on what high schoolers might conclude? These are the people eating tide pods and keeping Hot Topic in business.

But yea, I think this is really about the implicit promises of society. That promise used to be college not necessary - grow up, get a job you can work at for life and be proud of, easily afford a house, a car, and support a family. As US manufacturing dwindled in the face of globalization and the moves of companies to exploit it for profit, that promise had to be backed off a bit. But still, if you went to college and earned a degree, you're largely supposed to have a good shot at a decent life. But as we went further down this hole, a college degree became the minimum for entry at many jobs, and as that became normalized, many couldn't get jobs and the idea of a sort of quid-pro-quo job-for-education agreement faded. But you still have people who basically followed in everyone's footsteps and then were surprised, I think rightfully so, to receive a different sort of outcome.

I don't look at people who are unable to pay off their loans and think, "ah, they're not working hard". I think, "ah, sadly tried to live a 2022 life with a 2005 mindset." And that's something society should work against, both in fixing the current problem, and changing the attitudes of people now as they make decisions for a 2030 life based on a 2022 mindset. "I thought if I did STEM I would have a good chance at a job." "Sorry, we replaced most of that with AI and you're going to need at least a masters, and frankly we'd rather hire from India because the wages are 1/10th what we have to pay here and we're all remote anyway -- sorry!"


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Evade, you gotta start thinking a little harder man.
> 
> 
> 
> We do the same thing. We give them what they're owed by the VA rather than cutting its funding. This is not a gotcha, everyone I know supports helping kids who were doing their best to make their way when they were young but got screwed by propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the inflation from the bailouts? Andy why is that inherently different from the MUCH SMALLER dollar amount being forgiven?
> 
> Mortgages have been government subsidized for like 70 years, man. Debt is not all the same, but student loan debt was never intended to be a money-making scheme despite how it ended up.
> 
> The ladder has been pulled up behind the boomers for the most part. "I suffered so others should too" is a mentality that matches fairly well to your avatar and helps absolutely no one, though I'm guessing you would like helping absolutely no one so I don't think this will be a convincing argument.


Part of the reason I post threads and content here is because I get the opportunity to talk to people who have thought about these issues in depth. Whether or not I inherently agree with these viewpoints, it does help the cognitive processes because it's rare to find a spot that I can do that relatively casually but also with opposing viewpoints. I'm not afraid to be wrong and I don't think this is necessarily about being wrong or right, but I actually really liked reading this thread primarily because it allows other people to share an opposing viewpoint. I don't want to talk about this issue with people who agree with me.

This isn't about my suffering. There really isn't a position where I could disagree whether or not I had student loans or not that would make the context better from where I'm coming from. I'm having a difficult time understanding how not all debt is the same. Especially when it comes to mortgages and education. Here we are making an argument about how basic education should be free for all, and it is. (Shouldn't basic housing be free too and accessible to all as well?) If everyone didn't have to worry about where they could live, society could focus on their professional and educational career. Food for thought. Forgive mortgages over college. Anyway, up onto high school it is free, we have public schooling. Community college is affordable with a part time job. Transfer in two years, go into some debt, but choose a debt you can manage. Around 20 years of age.

What is this "18 go straight to harvard come out with 0 debt mentality?" (I'm exaggerating of course)


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

narad said:


> I mean, do you have this thought now, or does it take a stupid HS level brain to reach this conclusion? Should we change policy based on what high schoolers might conclude? These are the people eating tide pods and keeping Hot Topic in business.
> 
> But yea, I think this is really about the implicit promises of society. That promise used to be college not necessary - grow up, get a job you can work at for life and be proud of, easily afford a house, a car, and support a family. As US manufacturing dwindled in the face of globalization and the moves of companies to exploit it for profit, that promise had to be backed off a bit. But still, if you went to college and earned a degree, you're largely supposed to have a good shot at a decent life. But as we went further down this hole, a college degree became the minimum for entry at many jobs, and as that became normalized, many couldn't get jobs and the idea of a sort of quid-pro-quo job-for-education agreement faded. But you still have people who basically followed in everyone's footsteps and then were surprised, I think rightfully so, to receive a different sort of outcome.
> 
> I don't look at people who are unable to pay off their loans and think, "ah, they're not working hard". I think, "ah, sadly tried to live a 2022 life with a 2005 mindset." And that's something society should work against, both in fixing the current problem, and changing the attitudes of people now as they make decisions for a 2030 life based on a 2022 mindset. "I thought if I did STEM I would have a good chance at a job." "Sorry, we replaced most of that with AI and you're going to need at least a masters, and frankly we'd rather hire from India because the wages are 1/10th what we have to pay here and we're all remote anyway -- sorry!"


It's worse than this. I went to college in 2014. I changed majors to EE in 2015 when every website I looked at had entry level jobs at 75-85k. I made an informed decision. When I graduated I made 57k, and that was my best offer despite inflation doing a number on those salaries before COVID even hit. There is no way to make an informed decision on job prospects a half decade in advance and especially not when you just stopped having to ask if you can go to the bathroom.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

evade said:


> We found some spare change and chose to do what some people would interpret as an objective good it seems.
> 
> Having more educated and fewer in debt is a net good at the cost of additional inflation hikes that will undoubtedly come from this.
> 
> Okay so canceling debt is a net good, then why doesn't the government cancel everyone's mortgage? Cancel all debt from financial institutions.
> 
> The hang up I have isn't just emotional, it is logically inconsistent. Some people paid their debts. Others didn't. Others will still have to. Same system.
> 
> I'm in America, let's see if I benefit from it. Only time will tell.
> 
> By the way, I paid for my loans in this seemingly unreasonable time and so did a majority of our alumni. We all had our struggles, but goddamn if we knew it would've paid to be a degenerate instead....
> 
> We still probably wouldn't have been one. If I could get just 10K in tax refunds or credits that could be claimed over time in the future, I'll shut the fuck up. My student loans were well over 10K and I still paid them off over the course of years where I had to live conservatively.
> 
> If I had 10K to spend as stimulus money, I would spend it. Probably most of us on this forum. You know this.



There should be mechanisms in place to help people with mortgages they can't pay, because again, it's a net positive to have fewer homeless people. 

It's pretty telling that you think that folks who are in debt are "degenerates."

Again, we're all in this country together and making life better for all brings us all up a notch, even if it's not direct payouts. 

Punishing the poor or struggling is spiteful and actually leads to a worse society for us all.


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> It is vague because it gives you an opportunity to answer it with the details.
> 
> No one got to choose, but everyone gets to express their concerns and frustrations and we should strive to be better.
> 
> I also agree with you. I like most other people who have student debt, have also made what seemed like the best choices at the times when those choices had to be made.
> 
> I am definitely not missing the intent. I know that private sector pays more than public, but it would appear that your view is subjected to your own human experience, for instance thinking that public service is considered to be the good of society etc.
> 
> You could work in the private sector, make back your student debt and more, become more competitive and drive your own innovations further. These can also be considered good for society if you're able to innovate or publicize the works you've done in the private sector.
> 
> If you can achieve monumental success or acquire wealth through said innovations, you could very well return a net benefit for society. I mean, even paying your taxes is technically considered a net benefit for society.
> 
> You can achieve more both personally, professionally, and socially in the private sector. (Hypothetically)
> 
> 
> That being said I don't expect you to expect a hand-out.


It is great that you paid off your loans. My wife was able to pay hers off, with some parental help and scholarships. But, she also worked an AmeriCorps internship through the Red Cross, then spent ten years working multiple seasonal and part-time jobs just to get her resume to a point where she could land a full-time job in her field. I have worked both private sector and not-for profit. Before accepting my current job, I was working dual careers across three jobs for several years. Five years ago, even with four college degrees and six jobs between the two of us, my wife and I were still struggling to pay rent. We both still drive cars from the early 2000's. The adage about hard work getting you ahead in life is not always true. The economy in this country gives advantage toward those born in money. That is the crux of capitalism. Health care and education, frankly, benefit society as a whole, therefore should not be opportunities for profit.

I can appreciate that if you were able to pay off your loans, you expect that everyone can. You are fortunate to have that outlook, as many have tried to get there, and struggled for years, making little headway. I have joked, many times, that my one reprieve is that student loans disappear in the event of the death of the individual who had signed the master promissory note. It is not such a funny joke when every financial decision you make (car repairs, groceries, trying to save for a down payment on a house) falls back on knowing you had to take out loans for a degree.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> I mean, do you have this thought now, or does it take a stupid HS level brain to reach this conclusion? Should we change policy based on what high schoolers might conclude? These are the people eating tide pods and keeping Hot Topic in business.
> 
> But yea, I think this is really about the implicit promises of society. That promise used to be college not necessary - grow up, get a job you can work at for life and be proud of, easily afford a house, a car, and support a family. As US manufacturing dwindled in the face of globalization and the moves of companies to exploit it for profit, that promise had to be backed off a bit. But still, if you went to college and earned a degree, you're largely supposed to have a good shot at a decent life. But as we went further down this hole, a college degree became the minimum for entry at many jobs, and as that became normalized, many couldn't get jobs and the idea of a sort of quid-pro-quo job-for-education agreement faded. But you still have people who basically followed in everyone's footsteps and then were surprised, I think rightfully so, to receive a different sort of outcome.
> 
> I don't look at people who are unable to pay off their loans and think, "ah, they're not working hard". I think, "ah, sadly tried to live a 2022 life with a 2005 mindset." And that's something society should work against, both in fixing the current problem, and changing the attitudes of people now as they make decisions for a 2030 life based on a 2022 mindset. "I thought if I did STEM I would have a good chance at a job." "Sorry, we replaced most of that with AI and you're going to need at least a masters, and frankly we'd rather hire from India because the wages are 1/10th what we have to pay here and we're all remote anyway -- sorry!"


Varying degrees and probably not as assumptive. I can assure you many conservatives probably have reached this conclusion, but I wouldn't predicate their intelligence on it. This is more of a personal value and how it synergizes with societal values issue. 

That's a good question, should we change our policy based on what high schoolers might conclude? Maybe not, but you're well aware that high schoolers (around senior year) would be able to legally vote and make these conclusions. 

Also this mentality about "not working hard". There are always two sides to a coin. I don't want to be biased and say there is necessarily more or less people who work hard or who don't. It's biased either side you take. If you always think they work hard or if you always think they aren't working hard, it doesn't provide a platform for fairly assessing the situation, does it? What about the people who aren't working hard? I think a lot of people are asking this question. 

What about the people who figured it out without intervention? Do you believe in equity or equality because equity is inherently unequal. 

If you do commit to STEM, to this day, you would have a better chance of a job than if you did philosophy. 


Who makes the AIs? Those in STEM or philosophy graduates? People who went to university already have a fighting chance. Great point referencing India, I wonder how many Indians from India would agree with the whole "loan forgiveness" ideology. They're born in hypercompetition, I think this would be easy mode for them.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> I'm having a difficult time understanding how not all debt is the same. Especially when it comes to mortgages and education. Here we are making an argument about how basic education should be free for all, and it is.


I can see that. Think harder. It's not free; you need a college degree to do anything. The software testers making half my salary at my job? Physics and math degrees.



evade said:


> (Shouldn't basic housing be free too and accessible to all as well?)


Yep. Not a gotcha, it should.



evade said:


> Forgive mortgages over college.


If people in the situation to benefit from student loan forgiveness could afford to get a mortgage I might be inclined to agree. But as it stands, these people are stuck paying 1k in rent and 500 in student loans so they can't save 10% down for a mortgage, when they could easily make 700 mortgage payments if they didn't have the loans or the rental gouging.


----------



## /wrists

MaxOfMetal said:


> There should be mechanisms in place to help people with mortgages they can't pay, because again, it's a net positive to have fewer homeless people.
> 
> It's pretty telling that you think that folks who are in debt are "degenerates."
> 
> Again, we're all in this country together and making life better for all brings us all up a notch, even if it's not direct payouts.
> 
> Punishing the poor or struggling is spiteful and actually leads to a worse society for us all.


Because I'm a degenerate and I know degenerate mentality and I am in still in debt and I still don't expect or want a handout. 

Please don't get me started on homeless people...

I don't think having the poor or those struggling with student the loans pay off their debts is punishing them. It's surprising to me that you would consider that a punishment.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> I can assure you many conservatives probably have reached this conclusion, but I wouldn't predicate their intelligence on it.
> 
> Also this mentality about "not working hard". There are always two sides to a coin. I don't want to be biased and say there is necessarily more or less people who work hard or who don't. It's biased either side you take. If you always think they work hard or if you always think they aren't working hard, it doesn't provide a platform for fairly assessing the situation, does it? What about the people who aren't working hard? I think a lot of people are asking this question.


You are biased. I don't work very hard and I make a ton of money because I was born very smart, or at least enough to do my job with no issues. I can say for certain that when I was making 9 bucks an hour at Qdoba I was working 1000% as hard as I do day in, day out these days. Nobody is asking this question except conservatives, and having spent a ton of time around them I can say they aren't working particularly hard either.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I can see that. Think harder. It's not free; you need a college degree to do anything. The software testers making half my salary at my job? Physics and math degrees.
> 
> 
> Yep. Not a gotcha, it should.
> 
> 
> If people in the situation to benefit from student loan forgiveness could afford to get a mortgage I might be inclined to agree. But as it stands, these people are stuck paying 1k in rent and 500 in student loans so they can't save 10% down for a mortgage, when they could easily make 700 mortgage payments if they didn't have the loans or the rental gouging.


Reverse the roles, if they were able to achieve a down payment with a federal loan and a mortgage, then maybe they wouldn't need college for a high paying job just so they could not be homeless.

I'm a consultant, plenty of people don't have degrees in my field. They make fairly average incomes and can sustain a living. Those with college degrees in my field, complete waste of time.


----------



## Grindspine

MaxOfMetal said:


> We always have money for foreign wars, corporate bailouts, and tax breaks for the mind numbingly wealthy, but never seem to have more than a nickel or dime for regular folks. Wonder how that works.


Oh yeah, if the federal government can bail out Ford and GM for being "too big to fail" when those companies did fail at capitalism, why is it a cardinal sin for an individual to not be able to find a high salary job based on decisions of major when starting a degree program years earlier?



Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I can see that. Think harder. It's not free; you need a college degree to do anything. The software testers making half my salary at my job? Physics and math degrees.
> 
> 
> Yep. Not a gotcha, it should.
> 
> 
> If people in the situation to benefit from student loan forgiveness could afford to get a mortgage I might be inclined to agree. But as it stands, these people are stuck paying 1k in rent and 500 in student loans so they can't save 10% down for a mortgage, when they could easily make 700 mortgage payments if they didn't have the loans or the rental gouging.


Speaking of mortgages, student loans being put on hold during covid was the only way that my wife and I were able to actually nest-egg enough for a down payment. Fortunately, we purchased a condo in 2020 before the price skyrocketed. If I had not had that opportunity, we would be even further from ever buying a home. The price of this property increased by 41% in the past two years. I do not imagine that my nephews or nieces will ever be able to afford college or own a home unless major reforms are made to the economy.


----------



## /wrists

Grindspine said:


> It is great that you paid off your loans. My wife was able to pay hers off, with some parental help and scholarships. But, she also worked an AmeriCorps internship through the Red Cross, then spent ten years working multiple seasonal and part-time jobs just to get her resume to a point where she could land a full-time job in her field. I have worked both private sector and not-for profit. Before accepting my current job, I was working dual careers across three jobs for several years. Five years ago, even with four college degrees and six jobs between the two of us, my wife and I were still struggling to pay rent. We both still drive cars from the early 2000's. The adage about hard work getting you ahead in life is not always true. The economy in this country gives advantage toward those born in money. That is the crux of capitalism. Health care and education, frankly, benefit society as a whole, therefore should not be opportunities for profit.
> 
> I can appreciate that if you were able to pay off your loans, you expect that everyone can. You are fortunate to have that outlook, as many have tried to get there, and struggled for years, making little headway. I have joked, many times, that my one reprieve is that student loans disappear in the event of the death of the individual who had signed the master promissory note. It is not such a funny joke when every financial decision you make (car repairs, groceries, trying to save for a down payment on a house) falls back on knowing you had to take out loans for a degree.


I don't agree with this because many of my friends' parents including mine were immigrants who came into this country without knowing how to speak English and built a life for themselves and their children.

It's not "capitalism's fault".

Let me say this again, my parents and many that of my friends' even my girlfriends came into this country not knowing how to speak a sentence in English and was able to achieve working class. Just above poverty.

The fact that people need "more help" when many people that I personally knew received none is an absolute cop out. 

We were not born rich. We were not born even middle class. Most of my friends and I were all born poor but we didn't receive fuck all to do better in life. Hearing this generation mope about how they haven't been given enough is disgusting. 

They have all the information available at their fingertips. We live in the information age. 

No one is restricting you from making something of yourself. You can go to a McDonalds with a $200 iPod and learn a trade like I did when I was in high school.


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> Reverse the roles, if they were able to achieve a down payment with a federal loan and a mortgage, then maybe they wouldn't need college for a high paying job just so they could not be homeless.
> 
> I'm a consultant, plenty of people don't have degrees in my field. They make fairly average incomes and can sustain a living. Those with college degrees, complete waste of time.


Would you like people who were not dedicated enough to finish a college degree to be working up biopsies from your doctor visits though? Some things really do require an in-depth education to gain competency. That statement is not just my opinion; it is law that high-complexity testing must be done by personnel who meet certain educational requirements. Thus, college education is a necessity.





About CLIA | CDC


CDC - OPHSS - CSELS - Division of Laboratory Systems (DLS)




www.cdc.gov


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> Reverse the roles, if they were able to achieve a down payment with a federal loan and a mortgage, then maybe they wouldn't need college for a high paying job just so they could not be homeless.
> 
> I'm a consultant, plenty of people don't have degrees in my field. They make fairly average incomes and can sustain a living. Those with college degrees, complete waste of time.


This is survivorship bias. I work in firmware and you cannot get a job without a degree. Despite not using my EE degree, I still needed one. Can't make above that forgiveness cutoff without a degree unless you're the .001% lucky few.

I worked in a kitchen in college for a summer. You can't move past a basic manager position without a degree. Any degree, doesn't matter but you're stuck at 15-18 bucks an hour without that paper no matter how useless it is or how qualified you are. There aren't enough jobs like yours to sustain the American population above the poverty level and you know it.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> You are biased. I don't work very hard and I make a ton of money because I was born very smart, or at least enough to do my job with no issues. I can say for certain that when I was making 9 bucks an hour at Qdoba I was working 1000% as hard as I do day in, day out these days. Nobody is asking this question except conservatives, and having spent a ton of time around them I can say they aren't working particularly hard either.


I am biased, but so is literally every human.

I don't want to speak to your intelligence, but there are some statistics that would show that those who make more money generally work less. It's nothing new. If you're a board member, you're sitting at meetings every other hours twirling your thumb collecting 300K+ profit sharing. Achieving that role, perhaps not that easy.



> Would you like people who were not dedicated enough to finish a college degree to be working up biopsies from your doctor visits though? Some things really do require an in-depth education to gain competency. That statement is not just my opinion; it is law that high-complexity testing must be done by personnel who meet certain educational requirements. Thus, college education is a necessity.



No, I don't. I think doctors should go through medical school, absolutely, I'm in agreement. Some degrees do, but this falls in STEM, doesn't it?

Give me a couple of professions such as an admin assistant, or perhaps marketing consultant necessarily needs to go to a prestigious 4 year.


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> I don't agree with this because many of my friends' parents including mine were immigrants who came into this country without knowing how to speak English and built a life for themselves and their children.
> 
> It's not "capitalism's fault".
> 
> Let me say this again, my parents and many that of my friends' even my girlfriends came into this country not knowing how to speak a sentence in English and was able to achieve working class. Just above poverty.
> 
> The fact that people need "more help" when many people that I personally knew received none is an absolute cop out.
> 
> We were not born rich. We were not born even middle class. Most of my friends and I were all born poor but we didn't receive fuck all to do better in life. Hearing this generation mope about how they haven't been given enough is disgusting.
> 
> They have all the information available at their fingertips. We live in the information age.
> 
> No one is restricting you from making something of yourself. You can go to a McDonalds with a $200 iPod and learn a trade like I did when I was in high school.


What generation are you assuming I am?

It sounds like your friends and family did have a strong social support system. I did not.

And the last quip about "making something of yourself" sounds borderline insulting. I remember hearing the same when I worked register at a gas station. A customer told me that I should "get a real job". I informed that customer that I was working on a degree and was working two jobs while doing so.

As I said before, I currently work at a respected hospital laboratory and am a liaison to a medical school. With my current degrees, that is about as far in the field as is possible to achieve.

To get more money, more recognition, or more prestige, I would either have to have the fortune of friends in privileged positions or have a huge stroke of luck. Hard work alone would not put me in a better position in the next several years. I am constantly building skills and reinforcing the social and business connections I can. If you have some advice on the secret sauce of success, please do share with the class.


----------



## narad

evade said:


> Also this mentality about "not working hard". There are always two sides to a coin. I don't want to be biased and say there is necessarily more or less people who work hard or who don't. It's biased either side you take. If you always think they work hard or if you always think they aren't working hard, it doesn't provide a platform for fairly assessing the situation, does it? What about the people who aren't working hard? I think a lot of people are asking this question.


Well your argument seems to be implying that those in need of this forgiveness are not working hard, while at the same time saying we have no idea of knowing. So... yea, I agree we don't actually know who is working hard, but that only hurts your argument.


evade said:


> What about the people who figured it out without intervention? Do you believe in equity or equality because equity is inherently unequal.


You say they "figured it out", but there will be people more or less successful in any situation. It's like if I spun a roulette wheel and then interview all the winners to ask how they won, and they replied like, "Well, I had a good feeling about black" / "Yea, I saw it came up black 2 times before so figured it would again", etc. You're retroactively assigning logic to something that probably has a huge degree of chance built in to it.



evade said:


> Who makes the AIs? Those in STEM or philosophy graduates? People who went to university already have a fighting chance. Great point referencing India, I wonder how many Indians from India would agree with the whole "loan forgiveness" ideology. They're born in hypercompetition, I think this would be easy mode for them.


Well that's quite funny in that the philosophy graduates are the ones tackling many of the difficult questions there, and most of a STEM background is irrelevant for it, besides general computer literacy.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> there are some statistics that would show that those who make more money generally work less. It's nothing new.


Which is it mr. conservative, are the poors gaming the system by not working or are they working real hard?


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> This is survivorship bias. I work in firmware and you cannot get a job without a degree. Despite not using my EE degree, I still needed one. Can't make above that forgiveness cutoff without a degree unless you're the .001% lucky few.
> 
> I worked in a kitchen in college for a summer. You can't move past a basic manager position without a degree. Any degree, doesn't matter but you're stuck at 15-18 bucks an hour without that paper no matter how useless it is or how qualified you are. There aren't enough jobs like yours to sustain the American population above the poverty level and you know it.


Of course you need a degree to work in firmware. This is a STEM field. 

Just because the kitchen you worked in didn't allow you to move past a basic managerial position does not mean all employers are the same. This is a confirmation bias, but I'm not here to commit conversational terrorism by listing all the logical fallacies in every post here. 

Perhaps there aren't enough jobs to sustain the American population, but what do you recommend? Communism or perhaps socialism? I'm not sure what you might be suggesting.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Which is it mr. conservative, are the poors gaming the system by not working or are they working real hard?


I'm not conservative, but I'm not liberal either. I don't know what you mean by the poors gaming the system. The student loan forgiveness is a decision made by our administration, not "the poors". Does it matter if you're working hard or not? It doesn't to me. All that matters to me is that you're working.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> Of course you need a degree to work in firmware. This is a STEM field.
> 
> Just because the kitchen you worked in didn't allow you to move past a basic managerial position does not mean all employers are the same. This is a confirmation bias, but I'm not here to commit conversational terrorism by listing all the logical fallacies in every post here.
> 
> Perhaps there aren't enough jobs to sustain the American population, but what do you recommend? Communism or perhaps socialism? I'm not sure what you might be suggesting.


People aren't punished for pursuing higher education despite their economic background and paying minimum wage workers a living wage. How are you not sure? I have been very clear.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> Also this mentality about "not working hard". There are always two sides to a coin. I don't want to be biased and say there is necessarily more or less people who work hard or who don't. It's biased either side you take. If you always think they work hard or if you always think they aren't working hard, it doesn't provide a platform for fairly assessing the situation, does it? What about the people who aren't working hard? I think a lot of people are asking this question.





evade said:


> The student loan forgiveness is a decision made by our administration, not "the poors". Does it matter if you're working hard or not? It doesn't to me. All that matters to me is that you're working.


???????


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> People aren't punished for pursuing higher education despite their economic background and paying minimum wage workers a living wage. How are you not sure? I have been very clear.


People aren't punished for pursuing higher education. Go to a community college while working a part time job. Transfer to a 4 year university for 2 years after declaring your major and work a part time job and handle manageable debt.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> ???????


???????? 

Notice how one scenario was directive and the other was general?


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> People aren't punished for pursuing higher education. Go to a community college while working a part time job. Transfer to a 4 year university for 2 years after declaring your major and work a part time job and handle manageable debt.


This messaging was not around when a lot of people went into debt; it only appeared during the crisis of the last half decade or so. People can't go back and follow this advice.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> Well your argument seems to be implying that those in need of this forgiveness are not working hard, while at the same time saying we have no idea of knowing. So... yea, I agree we don't actually know who is working hard, but that only hurts your argument.
> 
> You say they "figured it out", but there will be people more or less successful in any situation. It's like if I spun a roulette wheel and then interview all the winners to ask how they won, and they replied like, "Well, I had a good feeling about black" / "Yea, I saw it came up black 2 times before so figured it would again", etc. You're retroactively assigning logic to something that probably has a huge degree of chance built in to it.
> 
> 
> Well that's quite funny in that the philosophy graduates are the ones tackling many of the difficult questions there, and most of a STEM background is irrelevant for it, besides general computer literacy.


Potentially based off of my own experience, not sure. 

Sorry I keep bringing up philosophy, it's probably not even that useless. It's actually what I wanted to major in but was actively discouraged in doing so. Instead I majored in something more useless, education.


----------



## Grindspine

Attach files


evade said:


> I am biased, but so is literally every human.
> 
> I don't want to speak to your intelligence, but there are some statistics that would show that those who make more money generally work less. It's nothing new. *If you're a board member, you're sitting at meetings every other hours twirling your thumb collecting 300K+ profit sharing. Achieving that role, perhaps not that easy.*
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I think doctors should go through medical school, absolutely, I'm in agreement. Some degrees do, but this falls in STEM, doesn't it?
> 
> Give me a couple of professions such as an admin assistant, or perhaps marketing consultant necessarily needs to go to a prestigious 4 year.


That note about board members is something I mentioned earlier in the thread. Board members and executives making hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hours of board meetings a week is the crux of the problem. That is one of the largest increases in cost for universities, thus higher education, thus a major point of the student loan argument. This also applies to hospital boards. The hospital system for which I work has a CEO that makes about $2.4 million a year. I honestly do not know why I make single-digit percentages of what he does per hour of work or how someone goes from working in a company to executive other than having luck and social connections.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> This messaging was not around when a lot of people went into debt; it only appeared during the crisis of the last half decade or so. People can't go back and follow this advice.


This message wasn't around, but the option was. 

Just like how those who are financially in distress shouldn't reproduce but they do anyways. There's no message there to proactively tell them not to.

Are you implying people need to be told what to do or are they incapable of critical thought? 

Hmm, if I have this baby at 16, I probably won't be able to have a career and provide a good life for either of us.


----------



## /wrists

Grindspine said:


> Attach files
> 
> That note about board members is something I mentioned earlier in the thread. Board members and executives making hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hours of board meetings a week is the crux of the problem. That is one of the largest increases in cost for universities, thus higher education, thus a major point of the student loan argument. This also applies to hospital boards. The hospital system for which I work has a CEO that makes about $2.4 million a year. I honestly do not know why I make single-digit percentages of what he does per hour of work or how someone goes from working in a company to executive other than having luck and social connections.


As a wage slave, I also have the same question.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

Ok, too many dog whistles for me I'm out


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> Well your argument seems to be implying that those in need of this forgiveness are not working hard, while at the same time saying we have no idea of knowing. So... yea, I agree we don't actually know who is working hard, but that only hurts your argument.


Guys, I need you to remind me of what my argument even was.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Ok, too many dog whistles for me I'm out


I forget if it was you or someone else who literally attributed my views based off of my profile picture.


----------



## Grindspine

And, I really should be excited about any student loan news, considering how long I have had educational debt. My accountant emailed me about the news, but basically said not to count on it as fact since legal challenges to it are likely to reach the SCOTUS in the coming months.

I am not holding my breath on it. And even with this type of debate, it just shows that there are those who will piss on any opportunity for others to do better for themselves. Greed is the cause of all of this, and is likely to impede progress. If interested, here is a video on game theory and how the "hawks and doves" of society will always be at odds.



Out.


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> This message wasn't around, but the option was.
> 
> Just like how those who are financially in distress shouldn't reproduce but they do anyways. There's no message there to proactively tell them not to.
> 
> Are you implying people need to be told what to do or are they incapable of critical thought?
> 
> Hmm, if I have this baby at 16, I probably won't be able to have a career and provide a good life for either of us.


And really, considering the abortion debate in the country at the moment, this statement just bates another thread worth of argument. I am not doing that tonight.


----------



## /wrists

Grindspine said:


> And really, considering the abortion debate in the country at the moment, this statement just bates another thread worth of argument. I am not doing that tonight.


I'm with Bill Burr on abortion.


----------



## /wrists

evade said:


> I don't agree with this because many of my friends' parents including mine were immigrants who came into this country without knowing how to speak English and built a life for themselves and their children.
> 
> It's not "capitalism's fault".
> 
> Let me say this again, my parents and many that of my friends' even my girlfriends came into this country not knowing how to speak a sentence in English and was able to achieve working class. Just above poverty.
> 
> The fact that people need "more help" when many people that I personally knew received none is an absolute cop out.
> 
> We were not born rich. We were not born even middle class. Most of my friends and I were all born poor but we didn't receive fuck all to do better in life. Hearing this generation mope about how they haven't been given enough is disgusting.
> 
> They have all the information available at their fingertips. We live in the information age.
> 
> No one is restricting you from making something of yourself. You can go to a McDonalds with a $200 iPod and learn a trade like I did when I was in high school.


Weird how no one wants to address this, but apparently I'm heartless.


----------



## narad

evade said:


> Weird how no one wants to address this, but apparently I'm heartless.



Well you're recommending people go to McDonalds to make something of themselves. It's not really worth a discussion if you're starting from that sort of position. It's not that you're heartless, it's that you're unrealistic.


----------



## Jonathan20022

The discourse on this topic is a waste of time, handwaving the amount because we've bailed out larger institutions, while also stripping young adults of all their agency when signing up for debilitating debt is such a bad take.

"I wish someone would have told me" is on the same level as the meme about people saying they wish they had courses in high school for accounting/taxes/interviews.

I'm not going to infantilize people who have the most access to data in human history, and choose to not inform themselves on debt just cause mom and dad said it was a good idea. If these people exist, they're one bad influence away from ruining their lives completely the way we present the indebted student archetype. But at the end of the day some percentage of the population will perpetually pay the minimum payment on their credit cards *regardless *of their statement telling them it'll take 7x longer to pay their compounding interest. 

Anyways, I'm not exactly against forgiveness as a concept and would absolutely be on board with a hard focus group and means testing it. These are the highlight points of the press release:


----------



## StevenC

I remember when I was young and stupid enough to think STEM degrees were the answer to all of life's problems.


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> The discourse on this topic is a waste of time, handwaving the amount because we've bailed out larger institutions, while also stripping young adults of all their agency when signing up for debilitating debt is such a bad take.
> 
> "I wish someone would have told me" is on the same level as the meme about people saying they wish they had courses in high school for accounting/taxes/interviews.
> 
> I'm not going to infantilize people who have the most access to data in human history, and choose to not inform themselves on debt just cause mom and dad said it was a good idea. If these people exist, they're one bad influence away from ruining their lives completely the way we present the indebted student archetype. But at the end of the day some percentage of the population will perpetually pay the minimum payment on their credit cards *regardless *of their statement telling them it'll take 7x longer to pay their compounding interest.
> 
> Anyways, I'm not exactly against forgiveness as a concept and would absolutely be on board with a hard focus group and means testing it. These are the highlight points of the press release:
> 
> View attachment 113157
> 
> View attachment 113158



These sound great. I don't where the $10k of forgiveness talk is coming from, and that is definitely the part I have the most qualms with (not with forgiveness, but any heavy-handed one-size-fits-all delivery of it). These other things are very in line with what a lot of the UK/EU does. Basically more safety nets for people who step out of their degree and don't have something lucrative and persistent lined up from day one.

It also acts as somewhat of a check on uni costs. The more people who graduate without the means of repaying the tuition, the more these costs rise, and the more attention must shift to the unis' responsibility. Basically additional pressure that what they're selling still has value.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I lost brain cells just reading this. I’ve had enough internet for one day.


You asked why there isn't bipartisan support for a functioning education system. I suggested asking Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education from 2017 to 2021, who spent her time defunding public schools and pumping that money into bible schools. I then suggested that the reason for this is because education is correlated with voting democrat.

The point being made is that, as you say, education is an overall good thing for society but Republicans, again, are anti good-for-society policies.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> You asked why there isn't bipartisan support for a functioning education system. I suggested asking Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education from 2017 to 2021, who spent her time defunding public schools and pumping that money into bible schools. I then suggested that the reason for this is because education is correlated with voting democrat.
> 
> The point being made is that, as you say, education is an overall good thing for society but Republicans, again, are anti good-for-society policies.



And not even good-for-themselves policies. All that charter school stuff was just a way to segregate their children out to nicer schools than what the public was offering, bolstering charter funding while making the public schools worse. But of course most republican's kids can't afford charter schools, so more like good-for-who-they-want-to-be policies.


----------



## sleewell

This forum is so fucked. Pretty accurate representation of society tho I guess.

If someone expresses an opinion just slightly outside of the echo chamber it's not really a discussion rather its omg stop watching fox news.

100% accepting the group think or jump to conclusions and try to run them off. 


Saying you didn't understand what you were signing makes you look like a fool and is not a valid reason to erase debt. You knew you were taking a loan and now you just don't want to pay it back because large groups of people are echoing that same flawed line of thinking. 

I pay debts that i agree to repay and that doesn't make me some far right authoritarian. Saying the system is broken and this political band aid is doing nothing to address it is also not a far right idea. Bidens own press release says they are going to talk to colleges about the problems. Wow, that is substantial lol. Bet that really does something haha.


Can anyone articulate why we should continue to make the same loans if they are so bad we need to borrow 300 billion we don't have to bailout certain borrowers? Are we going to bailout everyone that takes out these loans moving forward?


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> This forum is so fucked. Pretty accurate representation of society tho I guess.
> 
> If someone expresses an opinion just slightly outside of the echo chamber it's not really a discussion rather its omg stop watching fox news.
> 
> 100% accepting the group think or jump to conclusions and try to run them off.
> 
> 
> Saying you didn't understand what you were signing makes you look like a fool and is not a valid reason to erase debt. You knew you were taking a loan and now you just don't want to pay it back because large groups of people are echoing that same flawed line of thinking.
> 
> I pay debts that i agree to repay and that doesn't make me some far right authoritarian. Saying the system is broken and this political band aid is doing nothing to address it is also not a far right idea. Bidens own press release says they are going to talk to colleges about the problems. Wow, that is substantial lol. Bet that really does something haha.
> 
> 
> Can anyone articulate why we should continue to make the same loans if they are so bad we need to borrow 300 billion we don't have to bailout certain borrowers? Are we going to bailout everyone that takes out these loans moving forward?



Damn dude, turn off the Fox News already. Let's keep bailing out banks and having massive tax loopholes for mega wealthy people while throwing a tantrum at the thought of helping young people setup their lives and recover from a one-time poor life decision.


----------



## sleewell

narad said:


> Damn dude, turn off the Fox News already. Let's keep bailing out banks and having massive tax loopholes for mega wealthy people while throwing a tantrum at the thought of helping young people setup their lives and recover from a one-time poor life decision.



Why do you assume I am for the prior because I oppose the later?

Why does whataboutism always allow us to be OK with bad ideas simply because other bad ideas occurred in the past? 

I was against bailing out the banks and wish they would close tax loopholes. I am for adding more irs employees because I don't cheat on my taxes and don't buy the line about them storming my house lol.

I think it's possible to be for financial responsibility without making it political.


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> Why do you assume I am for the prior because I oppose the later?
> 
> I was against bailing out the banks and wish they would close tax loopholes. I am for adding more irs employees because I don't cheat on my taxes and don't buy the line about them storming my house lol.
> 
> I think it's possible to be for financial responsibility without making it political.



I'm not making an assumption about your specific leaning, just that America as a whole will (mostly) quietly accept the allocation of exponentially more money than this to furthering the class divide, and when finally there's even the slightest done towards remedying the enormous disadantages facing the young people of the country today, everyone balks. By everyone I mean mostly people too old to apply for it, but happily would have previously.

Life in the US just gets worse every year. Something really needs to be done to help ensure that young people have the same sort of shot at a reasonable life as the preceding generation. In the scope of things, now is not the time to talk about financial responsibility. Get mad about it when the US makes terrible policy to benefit the already wealthy, year after year, instead of doing anything to remedy the accumulating debt.


----------



## thraxil

sleewell said:


> Saying the system is broken and this political band aid is doing nothing to address it is also not a far right idea.



No, and I'd bet that the vast majority of us here agree that the system is broken and that this is a pretty minimal bandaid.

I think the distinction is just that some of us take that and say "cool. let's do waaaay more of this kind of thing and work towards actually fixing the underlying problems as well" rather than "it's not enough so it's just bad." The latter conclusion isn't inherently a far right idea, but curiously seems to be the position that Fox News and other right wing media are leaning *hard* into.

I'm not expecting to see a politician on either side of the aisle come up with a plan that will fix 100% of the problems with the system (let alone get something passed). As a member of the voting public, I'd rather that we send the message to them that we want them to at least work on what partial solutions they can get passed rather than "if you even try something that isn't a 100% systemic fix, we'll attack you and vote you out of office".


----------



## sleewell

to be clear my position is not that this is not enough so its just bad.

my position is this was a political ploy with no real plan or intention to address the root of the issue so it will in effect make things worse and have the opposite of the desired effect in the long run. you don't start with loan forgiveness and say will will talk about solving the problem later, that is just foolishness and if you believe that you are very gullible.

Forgiving loans will make costs rise at a much faster pace which will only exacerbate the problem for current and future students.

Are the people applying for new loans right now entitled to the same amount of forgiveness? How is that fair if they are not? when colleges know that debt will be forgiven they will raise costs at a faster pace which creates more of a burden for younger people so that a certain group can get 10k wiped off their debt.

i also dont even see how this can even be labeled as a partial solution. a solution generally means fixing the problem which you have already admitted this does not but are hoping for that down the road. you are trying to label this as a solution bc some people got what they think is free money but nothing is really improving or being solved. to my point giving some people free money so they will vote for you without doing one thing to address the root of the problem is a political ploy.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

sleewell said:


> Saying you didn't understand what you were signing makes you look like a fool and is not a valid reason to erase debt. You knew you were taking a loan and now you just don't want to pay it back because large groups of people are echoing that same flawed line of thinking.


I think this is a bad faith argument, but on the off-chance it isn't, I'll explain in detail what people mean by not understanding what they were signing. Everyone knew they were taking a loan. Everyone knew how much that loan was. What they didn't know was that those loans would become useless debt burdens if they were unable to finish college or find a job, and the amount of time you have to be able to look into the future to predict something like that is beyond people who have only been alive for 4.5x that amount of time total.

If you took out a car loan you'd be expected to pay it back right? But what if the dealership told you the car was gone and good luck finding one _after_ you had signed? Well that's fraud and you wouldn't have to pay. Millions of people borrowed against lies, empty promises, and corporate greed and have been struggling to meet the ends as a result. I didn't agree to pay 40% more per year in than when I started, but if you get 3-4 years in you are trapped into paying whatever they ask or you have nothing to show for your education except money you can't pay back without the degree you didn't finish.

AND AGAIN, I'm one of the ones that found a good job after graduating. A lot of my friends were not so lucky.


sleewell said:


> to be clear my position is not that this is not enough so its just bad.
> 
> my position is this was a political ploy with no real plan or intention to address the root of the issue so it will in effect make things worse and have the opposite of the desired effect in the long run. you don't start with loan forgiveness and say will will talk about solving the problem later, that is just foolishness and if you believe that you are very gullible.
> 
> Forgiving loans will make costs rise at a much faster pace which will only exacerbate the problem for current and future students.
> 
> Are the people applying for new loans right now entitled to the same amount of forgiveness? How is that fair if they are not? when colleges know that debt will be forgiven they will raise costs at a faster pace which creates more of a burden for younger people so that a certain group can get 10k wiped off their debt.
> 
> i also dont even see how this can even be labeled as a partial solution. a solution generally means fixing the problem which you have already admitted this does not but are hoping for that down the road. you are trying to label this as a solution bc some people got what they think is free money but nothing is really improving or being solved. to my point giving some people free money so they will vote for you without doing one thing to address the root of the problem is a political ploy.


Again, you need to read the actual plan. You're grabbing onto the immediate relief part and ignoring the rest. They are lowering the payment cap on the loans - people keep paying but it starts to hurt them less in the event they didn't get the lucrative job colleges promised. They will also forgive loans after 10 years of payments, even if their capped payments are 0. So actually yes, literally all borrowers moving forward will have their loans forgiven if they can't pay. They're also subsidizing unpaid monthly interest so you don't end up with horror stories of people paying back the principle but still owing more than they started with. Under the new plan paying what you can will help you rather than keeping you stuck.

From the White House website:


A typical single construction worker (making $38,000 a year) with a construction management credential would pay only $31 a month, compared to the $147 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,400.
A typical single public school teacher with an undergraduate degree (making $44,000 a year) would pay only $56 a month on their loans, compared to the $197 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of nearly $1,700.
A typical nurse (making $77,000 a year) who is married with two kids would pay only $61 a month on their undergraduate loans, compared to the $295 they pay now under the most recent income-driven repayment plan, for annual savings of more than $2,800.
For each of these borrowers, their balances would not grow as long as they are making their monthly payments, and their remaining debt would be forgiven after they make the required number of qualifying payments.

Further, the Department of Education will make it easier for borrowers who enroll in this new plan to stay enrolled. Starting in the summer of 2023, borrowers will be able to allow the Department of Education to automatically pull their income information year after year, avoiding the hassle of needing to recertify their income annually.









FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most | The White House


A three-part plan delivers on President Biden’s promise to cancel $10,000 of student debt for low- to middle-income borrowers President Biden believes




www.whitehouse.gov


----------



## narad

Yea, and on top of that, when I went to school a good portion of my loans were at 8.7%. While I was told to be responsible with credit, here I was like never buying anything on credit and always clearing my monthly card balance thinking the credit card was in a different class of thing - meanwhile I've got a huge balance at 8.7%. Damn predatory stuff. But what are you going to do? Not go to school? And I don't know what a good rate is... I thought that was everyone's rates. This is the type of shit you definitely don't know when you're 17.

Then while in grad school I tried to refinance at 4%, but they wouldn't approve me without a co-signer. My dad wouldn't co-sign because of similar ideas about responsibility type BS. Moved to London and got a job... then Brexit tanked the pound and I saved less per year than the interest accrued on the loans. After having student loans for maybe 8 years, I finally reached out to my uncle to co-sign. Two years had them paid off, but paid probably more interest than I did principle.

I wouldn't want the next generation of people to be saddled with that kind of debt.. was just craziness.

And again, love this idea that you get X amount of loan forgiveness and you are somehow a burden to the system. They could have forgiven $40k of my loan, I probably still gave the banks $40k in profit.


----------



## jaxadam

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> If you took out a car loan you'd be expected to pay it back right? But what if the dealership told you the car was gone and good luck finding one _after_ you had signed? Well that's fraud and you wouldn't have to pay. Millions of people borrowed against lies, empty promises, and corporate greed and have been struggling to meet the ends as a result.



But they did get something, they got an education. Your example would make more sense if they paid for an education they didn’t receive. Additionally, and auto loan doesn’t “guarantee” a job just because you now have transportation to get there.

Actually, I take that back…. I definitely feel like I went to college with plenty of people who didn’t get an education!


----------



## Mathemagician

I was going to write a post in defense of loan forgiveness and limits on payments because an educated person earns more, pays more in taxes, etc. etc. but I’m tired. 

So I just hope everyone that benefits from this enjoys having their money going towards actively improving their lives and that your local communities benefit from you having more spending money. 

Because now that money is flowing into the real economy and not a black hole of interest.


----------



## ArtDecade

I paid off my loans because I was able to secure a good job with those degrees. I have much larger problems with cutting taxes on the uber-wealthy so that they can get richer while the average joe is struggling to keep their head above the poverty line. Anyone with a complaint about that has to figure out what master they are serving. If you need help - Stop being selfish and understand that helping your neighbor makes more sense than being a lap dog for billionaires.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Frankly, I don't see why this is a bad thing. Our taxes help someone, and the money they would spend on some system-gamed interest goes back to their families and the greater economy. It relieves someone from the low to middle-income bracket of crippling, lifelong debt. 

The "I suffered through my loans, you should suffer for yours" argument of the conservatives just further cements the bleak future of millions of Americans not having Universal Healthcare in this lifetime. It's some pull yourself by the bootstraps BS. It's just a very punitive culture and it's sad.

This rugged individuality BS doesn't help anyone.


----------



## StevenC

You know what else is dumb? It takes 4 years to get a bachelor's degree in America, compared to 3 in the UK. An additional 2 years to get a master's, compared to 1 in the UK. It takes 7 years to become a lawyer instead of 4 in the UK. It takes 8 years to become a doctor, compared to 5 in the UK.

Your college debt isn't just a problem, but a scam.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> You know what else is dumb? It takes 4 years to get a bachelor's degree in America, compared to 3 in the UK. An additional 2 years to get a master's, compared to 1 in the UK. It takes 7 years to become a lawyer instead of 4 in the UK. It takes 8 years to become a doctor, compared to 5 in the UK.
> 
> Your college debt isn't just a problem, but a scam.


Nah. We just aren't that clever and it takes longer to learn new tricks.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> Well you're recommending people go to McDonalds to make something of themselves. It's not really worth a discussion if you're starting from that sort of position. It's not that you're heartless, it's that you're unrealistic.


It's unrealistic for me to recommend someone to save $200 in high school and use the free Internet available at a restaurant that is available to the public to absorb information about something they are interested in? I could've said library, would it have changed anything?


----------



## /wrists

I don't understand why when I position against student loan forgiveness, it's "I suffered so everyone else has to suffer". 

I didn't suffer. I lived conservatively for a few years, learned a lesson about budgeting and had achieved some sort of financial freedom. 

Imagine thinking paying back your debt is suffering.


----------



## /wrists

MASS DEFECT said:


> Frankly, I don't see why this is a bad thing. Our taxes help someone, and the money they would spend on some system-gamed interest goes back to their families and the greater economy. It relieves someone from the low to middle-income bracket of crippling, lifelong debt.
> 
> The "I suffered through my loans, you should suffer for yours" argument of the conservatives just further cements the bleak future of millions of Americans not having Universal Healthcare in this lifetime. It's some pull yourself by the bootstraps BS. It's just a very punitive culture and it's sad.
> 
> This rugged individuality BS doesn't help anyone.


If paying for education is suffering, then paying for food, water, housing, gas, internet, and electricity is also suffering.

It's very easy for someone who isn't in the United States to criticize the state of affairs etc and I definitely don't think we're perfect at all. I think we have a lot of issues, but no one ever seems to recognize that we also have a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas. It's a very convoluted culture and there is a lot of friction especially towards change. For every extremist idea, there is another opposing it with the same degree of extremity. 

I don't know where you live, but I highly doubt it's perfect and if it is perfect (to you) it might not be to someone else. If you could quantify an objective amount of perfection, and even if it was truly some utopia, we could make the argument that your country/nation state doesn't have the sheer population size of the United States. This is actually a very basic problem outsiders seem to overlook when making these criticisms. "America is fucked, they don't have universal healthcare. College student lives in poverty. Social security is completely fucked. Taxes are misappropriated to xyz." Even though I'm in agreement with some of these issues, it doesn't mean I'll be content with ANY solution or any action that passes as a solution as a solution.

Do you really think that we could eliminate every problem in its entirety? America is not perfect and it seems like some people are working towards eliminating problems, but maybe not in a manner that appeases everyone. It happens.

In this instance, student loan forgiveness doesn't sit well with me, but it's going to happen regardless of my opinion. On that same token, I am able to express this opinion without the fear of persecution. 

I don't see why we can have a discussion without, "Turn off Fox". I don't even watch the news. I don't even have a television at home.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> I paid off my loans because I was able to secure a good job with those degrees. I have much larger problems with cutting taxes on the uber-wealthy so that they can get richer while the average joe is struggling to keep their head above the poverty line. Anyone with a complaint about that has to figure out what master they are serving. If you need help - Stop being selfish and understand that helping your neighbor makes more sense than being a lap dog for billionaires.


So tax the uber wealthy first and fix that problem before dealing with the education problem because if we tax the uber wealthy the appropriate amount, then maybe the average joe wouldn't struggle so much. But right now, we're applying fixes and spending money without taxing the uber wealthy the "perfect" amount whatever that is. 

I'm with you on that.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

evade said:


> I don't understand why when I position against student loan forgiveness, it's "I suffered so everyone else has to suffer".
> 
> I didn't suffer. I lived conservatively for a few years, learned a lesson about budgeting and had achieved some sort of financial freedom.
> 
> Imagine thinking paying back your debt is suffering.



Suffered could just mean you've gone through something. To have undergone an experience. i.e. suffer changes. You, living conservatively for a few years, have suffered living conservatively for a few years.



evade said:


> If paying for education is suffering, then paying for food, water, housing, gas, internet, and electricity is also suffering.
> 
> It's very easy for someone who isn't in the United States to criticize the state of affairs etc and I definitely don't think we're perfect at all. I think we have a lot of issues, but no one ever seems to recognize that we also have a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas. It's a very convoluted culture and there is a lot of friction especially towards change. For every extremist idea, there is another opposing it with the same degree of extremity.
> 
> I don't know where you live, but I highly doubt it's perfect and if it is perfect (to you) it might not be to someone else. If you could quantify an objective amount of perfection, and even if it was truly some utopia, we could make the argument that your country/nation state doesn't have the sheer population size of the United States. This is actually a very basic problem outsiders seem to overlook when making these criticisms. "America is fucked, they don't have universal healthcare. College student lives in poverty. Social security is completely fucked. Taxes are misappropriated to xyz." Even though I'm in agreement with some of these issues, it doesn't mean I'll be content with ANY solution or any action that passes as a solution as a solution.
> 
> Do you really think that we could eliminate every problem in its entirety? America is not perfect and it seems like some people are working towards eliminating problems, but maybe not in a manner that appeases everyone. It happens.
> 
> In this instance, student loan forgiveness doesn't sit well with me, but it's going to happen regardless of my opinion. On that same token, I am able to express this opinion without the fear of persecution.
> 
> I don't see why we can have a discussion without, "Turn off Fox". I don't even watch the news. I don't even have a television at home.



Seems like you living in America see the same stuff the outsiders see. But can't appreciate why some little progressive step on loan forgiveness alleviates much for your neighbor.


----------



## Jonathan20022

sleewell said:


> This forum is so fucked. Pretty accurate representation of society tho I guess.
> 
> If someone expresses an opinion just slightly outside of the echo chamber it's not really a discussion rather its omg stop watching fox news.
> 
> 100% accepting the group think or jump to conclusions and try to run them off.
> 
> 
> Saying you didn't understand what you were signing makes you look like a fool and is not a valid reason to erase debt. You knew you were taking a loan and now you just don't want to pay it back because large groups of people are echoing that same flawed line of thinking.
> 
> I pay debts that i agree to repay and that doesn't make me some far right authoritarian. Saying the system is broken and this political band aid is doing nothing to address it is also not a far right idea. Bidens own press release says they are going to talk to colleges about the problems. Wow, that is substantial lol. Bet that really does something haha.
> 
> 
> Can anyone articulate why we should continue to make the same loans if they are so bad we need to borrow 300 billion we don't have to bailout certain borrowers? Are we going to bailout everyone that takes out these loans moving forward?



Jesus Christ dude, this isn't Twitter. No one called you a far right nazi over your stances in the past and no one is now.

If memory serves, you were one of those "I'm so sick of this mask shit, I just wanna return to our normal so I can go enjoy a live show again" during the height of the pandemic.

You're not staking these insanely logically defensible positions and being kicked out of the conversation. You just look around and see blue and claim everyone is echoing each other.

Did you read any official messaging on the forgiveness roadmap and what they're going to strive for? Do you know that all the opposition to renovating the system is going to come from republican opposition. So claiming no work is being done to renovate the education lending system you have literally both sides to blame. The forgiveness being dangled before midterms, which hilariously is having the opposite effect since anything less than 100% debt wiped isn't worth it. And every bit of opposition the movement will get on it's way up the government ladder.



Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> What they didn't know was that those loans would become useless debt burdens if they were unable to finish college or find a job, and the amount of time you have to be able to look into the future to predict something like that is beyond people who have only been alive for 4.5x that amount of time total.



Your equivalence is insanely lacking here, you take on debt and immediately acquire what asset you owe money on. Why are you citing an *inability *to finish your college degree or find a job? If the loans are being offered and you are willing to take them on, what is physically impairing you from finishing your degree nevermind find a fucking job?

Did you finish your education and wait for the first high paying job you could find while *not working?* What kind of luxury is that, go work at Best Buy while you apply, find the next contract, apply for a direct hire position, go to local meets and socialize with local industry.

What's stopping these people from finishing their degrees, and not allowing them to have income flow at all times? You're describing results without a cause.

Again, I refuse to infantilize young adults as far as I'm fucking aware Biden's forgiven student debt for a large majority of the shadiest institutions that did partake in predatory practices. I will echo that when I walked into my financial aid office in 2010 and looked at all of my grants/awards/loans all the information was displayed clearly. I learned what interest was on my first credit card, so with that basic fucking knowledge I could understand that massive number x # of semesters x # of years in college would compound infinitely if I took them and didn't pay them back in a reasonable amount of time.

This should be a hard stop, and people should evaluate the viability of their careers and how they're going to fucking pay the loan back. If your parents forced you to take on a loan, or a corrupt office worker pressured you to ignore the fine details or explain basic debt principles to you, *I empathize*.

I however put *some* degree of responsibility on the student signing off on their own future debt. We are not promoting due diligence, and not this mindless passion project college experience where you take actions regardless of the consequences is pure insanity.

If you want to be a veterinarian because you "love cats" and don't know how competitive that fucking market is you necessarily have to take on some responsibility for your actions. I am not justifying "suffering" or that you need to be in crippling debt for the rest of your life, I am literally simply talking about how we treat young adults with student debt. Like how far in life can you even make it by just disregarding the result of your actions?


----------



## /wrists

> ]Suffered could just mean you've gone through something. To have undergone an experience. i.e. suffer changes. You, living conservatively for a few years, have suffered living conservatively for a few years.



Are we doing semantic gymnastics here? Yes the human experience is different for everyone, but if legally binding contracts, like loans, are being forgiven for some arbitrary reason, I think it's human nature for others to understand why other legally binding contracts to apply to them and what the logic behind it is. 



> Seems like you living in America see the same stuff the outsiders see. But can't appreciate why some little progressive step on loan forgiveness alleviates much for your neighbor.



I can appreciate progress, but why does progress only apply to a select few? If that's the case, is it progress or inequality? If it's inequality, is that truly progress if equality is one of the core foundations of the United States?


----------



## sleewell

Jonathan20022 said:


> Jesus Christ dude, this isn't Twitter. No one called you a far right nazi over your stances in the past and no one is now.
> 
> If memory serves, you were one of those "I'm so sick of this mask shit, I just wanna return to our normal so I can go enjoy a live show again" during the height of the pandemic.




show me where i said that. i wore a mask the entire time it was required and got the vax.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> I can appreciate progress, but why does progress only apply to a select few? If that's the case, is it progress or inequality? If it's inequality, is that truly progress if equality is one of the core foundations of the United States?


Relieving the debts of *millions* of students is not a select few. (Progress)

The last administration using a totally Republican controlled government passed a single bill lowering the tax rates for the country's wealthiest. (Inequality)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Folks are going to be able to have more manageable loan terms and people are acting like we're giving away yachts and cartoonish bags of cash.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> Relieving the debts of *millions* of students is not a select few. (Progress)
> 
> The last administration using a totally Republican controlled government passed a single bill lowering the tax rates for the country's wealthiest. (Inequality)


Millions of students in a select period of time. Students outside of this time period essentially got fucked. Students who paid their loans OFF a day before probably won't see a return. Doesn't mean they weren't struggling. Is it fair to them? (Equality?)



> Folks are going to be able to have more manageable loan terms and people are acting like we're giving away yachts and cartoonish bags of cash.



If I knew I could be forgiven $10k of loans when I was in college, I would've had to budget less and bought a used car instead since the government was going to forgive it.

and bro!

if i bought a used car and held it on to now, it would've even been an investment! I would've probably been able to sell the car at the value I bought it at in college! Then during the pandemic, I could've sold the car and maybe walked away with a profit!!


But I couldn't afford that investment because my loans weren't forgiven.

rip


----------



## Jonathan20022

sleewell said:


> show me where i said that. i wore a mask the entire time it was required and got the vax.



I wasn't going to remember what you said 1:1, but you were having the same echo chamber rants just over a year ago applauding states relieving restrictions. And you're still here saying that SSO is still an echo chamber with the same shade of blue 






Covid 19/Coronavirus


That's good to hear. I'm getting my second (pfizer) shot next week. First one was no big deal. A little shoulder soreness but nothing to prevent me from doing all normal activities. My first Pfizer shot was nothing...went out and cut the grass and other yard work for 3-4 hours with no...




sevenstring.org









Covid 19/Coronavirus


yup, i am crazy boomer bc i don't agree with the echo chamber. dig in folks, your way is right and everyone else is wrong and stupid. the echo chamber will always make you feel better and give your egos some well needed stroking. the echo chamber will def solve all of our problems as long as...




sevenstring.org







sleewell said:


> it is shitty to say but people were going to die either way. its a pandemic and we had to learn on the fly.



That's a nice spicy one


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> Millions of students in a select period of time. Students outside of this time period essentially got fucked. Students who paid their loans OFF a day before probably won't see a return. Doesn't mean they weren't struggling. Is it fair to them? (Equality?)
> 
> 
> 
> If I knew I could be forgiven $10k of loans when I was in college, I would've had to budget less and bought a used car instead since the government was going to forgive it.
> 
> and bro!
> 
> if i bought a used car and held it on to now, it would've even been an investment! I would've probably been able to sell the car at the value I bought it at in college! Then during the pandemic, I could've sold the car and maybe walked away with a profit!!
> 
> 
> But I couldn't afford that investment because my loans weren't forgiven.
> 
> rip


PLEASE READ. This is the third time I've had to post this.

Everyone gets their loans forgiven after 10 years of payments, those payments having been reduced to 5% of discretionary income and the limit for discretionary income increased. No interest will accrue so long as you make these payments, even if they are of 0 value.

EVERYONE FROM NOW ON GETS AFFORDABLE LOANS AND FORGIVENESS. NOBODY IS GETTING FUCKED. OH MY GOD PLEASE LISTEN.

And if you made payments after they paused repayments, you can go get a refund. Go do that.


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## MASS DEFECT

evade said:


> Are we doing semantic gymnastics here? Yes the human experience is different for everyone, but if legally binding contracts, like loans, are being forgiven for some arbitrary reason, I think it's human nature for others to understand why other legally binding contracts to apply to them and what the logic behind it is.



Mate, it's not semantic gymnastics. It's literally in the dictionary. And the loans are not being forgiven arbitrarily. It was well researched and it efficiently targets a section of society who can't pay through predatory loans and inefficient interest systems. It safeguards future payments with interest and income caps.



evade said:


> I can appreciate progress, but why does progress only apply to a select few?



The Fact Sheets clearly state that it IS progress INTENDED for a select few. It is targeted loan forgiveness. It's a start. And that is a good thing.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> PLEASE READ. This is the third time I've had to post this.
> 
> Everyone gets their loans forgiven after 10 years of payments, those payments having been reduced to 5% of discretionary income and the limit for discretionary income increased. No interest will accrue so long as you make these payments, even if they are of 0 value.
> 
> EVERYONE FROM NOW ON GETS AFFORDABLE LOANS AND FORGIVENESS. NOBODY IS GETTING FUCKED. OH MY GOD PLEASE LISTEN.


Ok relax, I'm going to take out a loan so I can get a liberal arts degree at Stanford. This is progress. I appreciate you sharing this with me.


It brings me happiness to hear that if I take out a loan of $300,000 I'll only need to make payments for 10 years. While I'm at it, I'll take another loan to go to Harvard to get my Masters in Story Telling.


----------



## /wrists

MASS DEFECT said:


> The Fact Sheets clearly state that it IS progress INTENDED for a select few. It is targeted loan forgiveness. It's a start. And that is a good thing.


Right, like affirmative action.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

evade said:


> Millions of students in a select period of time. Students outside of this time period essentially got fucked. Students who paid their loans OFF a day before probably won't see a return. Doesn't mean they weren't struggling. Is it fair to them? (Equality?)
> 
> 
> 
> If I knew I could be forgiven $10k of loans when I was in college, I would've had to budget less and bought a used car instead since the government was going to forgive it.
> 
> and bro!
> 
> if i bought a used car and held it on to now, it would've even been an investment! I would've probably been able to sell the car at the value I bought it at in college! Then during the pandemic, I could've sold the car and maybe walked away with a profit!!
> 
> 
> But I couldn't afford that investment because my loans weren't forgiven.
> 
> rip



Also students going forward, not just currently. 

It's like being mad that kids have cellphones now. Yeah, I didn't have one back in the day, but now everyone can have a cellphone because that's how time works, it moves forward. 

If I knew folks were going to buy $200 Epiphone Tom DeLonge ESs for like $2000 I would have jumped on it. 

Not being able to tell the future isn't something to get mad about, and it's not worth fighting progress over because you're butt hurt you weren't born in the future.


----------



## nightflameauto

It's amazing to me when reading through something like this how completely brainwashed some folks have become by the leading rhetoric, which is clearly designed to promote the philosophy that the rich are rich because they are God's Own Chosen People, and the folks "not rich" are "not rich" because they are failures of life, failures of faith, failures of existence and deserve every hardship they get. I've even heard people whining about giving free money to folks making six figures.

These same people cheer and shout when the banks or the auto makers get a massive handout because "economy." Well, sorry, fuckers, the economy is just like everything else and is built on a foundation. And while the people living in the penthouse on the top floor don't come down to the ground level very often to see how shaky that foundation has become, there's a lot of instability down here. Screaming scolding every time somebody offers a little tiny bit of a patch on that foundation because it's taking away from some multi-billionaires caviar budget is maddening when you're sitting in the lower-middle and trying anything you can to help the folks under you while not drowning yourself.

Is there literally any subject in the US that doesn't somehow boil down to arguments about how we need to make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? That's what it all seems to boil down to now. As a person that's trying to improve themselves and the world around them, it's sickening to the point of making me feel queasy.

I say this as a dude that made the decision to NOT fall for the preaching from mom, dad, school administrators, councilors, relatives, celebrities and literally the entirety of society and throw himself into (further) debt just to get a little piece of paper that matters not nearly as much as that debt does when you're middle class. I still want the people that fell for it taken care of because ALL OF US get better when the least of us gets better.

How the fuck have so many lost sight of that? God damn it.


----------



## /wrists

MaxOfMetal said:


> Also students going forward, not just currently.
> 
> It's like being mad that kids have cellphones now. Yeah, I didn't have one back in the day, but now everyone can have a cellphone because that's how time works, it moves forward.
> 
> If I knew folks were going to buy $200 Epiphone Tom DeLonge ESs for like $2000 I would have jumped on it.
> 
> Not being able to tell the future isn't something to get mad about, and it's not worth fighting progress over because you're butt hurt you weren't born in the future.


I'm not fighting progress and I'm not upset that people have cell phones. If we were just giving out iPhone 13's though and I had to pay for mine, I'd be a little upset. Surely you can understand.


----------



## /wrists

nightflameauto said:


> It's amazing to me when reading through something like this how completely brainwashed some folks have become by the leading rhetoric, which is clearly designed to promote the philosophy that the rich are rich because they are God's Own Chosen People, and the folks "not rich" are "not rich" because they are failures of life, failures of faith, failures of existence and deserve every hardship they get. I've even heard people whining about giving free money to folks making six figures.
> 
> These same people cheer and shout when the banks or the auto makers get a massive handout because "economy." Well, sorry, fuckers, the economy is just like everything else and is built on a foundation. And while the people living in the penthouse on the top floor don't come down to the ground level very often to see how shaky that foundation has become, there's a lot of instability down here. Screaming scolding every time somebody offers a little tiny bit of a patch on that foundation because it's taking away from some multi-billionaires caviar budget is maddening when you're sitting in the lower-middle and trying anything you can to help the folks under you while not drowning yourself.
> 
> Is there literally any subject in the US that doesn't somehow boil down to arguments about how we need to make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? That's what it all seems to boil down to now. As a person that's trying to improve themselves and the world around them, it's sickening to the point of making me feel queasy.
> 
> I say this as a dude that made the decision to NOT fall for the preaching from mom, dad, school administrators, councilors, relatives, celebrities and literally the entirety of society and throw himself into (further) debt just to get a little piece of paper that matters not nearly as much as that debt does when you're middle class. I still want the people that fell for it taken care of because ALL OF US get better when the least of us gets better.
> 
> How the fuck have so many lost sight of that? God damn it.


So fix the rich get richer and the poor get poorer issue first. Remember the tax the 1% more? 

What's being done about that?


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> I'm not fighting progress and I'm not upset that people have cell phones. If we were just giving out iPhone 13's though and I had to pay for mine, I'd be a little upset. Surely you can understand.


Why? If iPhones were just a free thing everyone got from now on would that make you upset because you had one before the era of free iPhones? Are you mad you paid 10c/text before unlimited texting was the norm?


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Why? If iPhones were just a free thing everyone got from now on would that make you upset because you had one before the era of free iPhones? Are you mad you paid 10c/text before unlimited texting was the norm?



Because if I had known about the free iPhones I wouldn't have bought one? Even if I wasn't upset at the system, I'd be upset at myself.

Can you not potentially see why I don't like throwing away $1000 or why I would might be a little upset with that? lol?


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> View attachment 113211


I didn't fact check this, but is that an account that is literally profiled Latinos/Latinas are Human Beings?


----------



## Jonathan20022

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Why? If iPhones were just a free thing everyone got from now on would that make you upset because you had one before the era of free iPhones? Are you mad you paid 10c/text before unlimited texting was the norm?



You guys are like being completely uncharitable to each other, yes that is literally what he is saying. Yes people are sour for buying something that went on sale 30 days after they bought them/given away for free. That';s a pretty normal sensation to experience.

@evade my dude, acquaint yourself with the quote function please.


----------



## CanserDYI

Can we stop comparing this to iPhone 13s? The equivalent would be a fucking trackphone for the drops in the barrel this is.


----------



## jaxadam

evade said:


> I didn't fact check this, but is that an account that is literally profiled Lations/Latinas are Human Beings?



He puts the Lations on the body


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> I didn't fact check this, but is that an account that is literally profiled Lations/Latinas are Human Beings?


Probably?


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> Can we stop comparing this to iPhone 13s? The equivalent would be a fucking trackphone for the drops in the barrel this is.


Smartphones are now a necessity, wouldn't you say? It's a much smaller amount to work with too. It's a great hypothetical. 

That being said a smartphone can have all the information you might need to start your own research paper in a "Hey Siri".


----------



## MASS DEFECT

evade said:


> Millions of students in a select period of time. Students outside of this time period essentially got fucked. Students who paid their loans OFF a day before probably won't see a return. Doesn't mean they weren't struggling. Is it fair to them? (Equality?)



Unfortunately, that is the reality of American government and the two-party deadlock. Debt forgiveness has been debated in Congress since the 80's. Proposed by Presidents. Proposed on the state and federal level FOR DECADES. And shot down every damn time by conservatives.

Trump had a student loan forgiveness agenda of some sort but was also shot down by his own party.

Point is, some people have been fighting for YOUR piece of equality. But it was consistently shot down. Now, relief comes to some people and fortunately, there was a semblance of political will to get it through. I'm just happy it happened.


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> Smartphones are now a necessity, wouldn't you say? It's a much smaller amount to work with too. It's a great hypothetical.
> 
> That being said a smartphone can have all the information you might need to start your own research paper in a "Hey Siri".


You are comparing forgiving a very specific section of our nation's debt, and not even all of it, a fraction of it in most cases, to giving away a COMPLETELY luxury item as an iPhone 13 to everyone. Just saying, that doesn't make any sense at all, and actually is a pretty insulting comparison to a lot of people.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

CanserDYI said:


> You are comparing forgiving a very specific section of our nation's debt, and not even all of it, a fraction of it in most cases, to giving away a COMPLETELY luxury item as an iPhone 13 to everyone. Just saying, that doesn't make any sense at all, and actually is a pretty insulting comparison to a lot of people.


Actually he's right that data-connected phones are a necessity and fortunately the government already agrees.








Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers


NEW REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW OF USAC DECISIONS: Any party (including, but not limited to entities filing an FCC Form 499, federal universal service program applicants, and service providers) that wishes to file an appeal of a USAC decision must first seek review of that decision by appealing...




www.fcc.gov





It's not iPhones but there is help.


----------



## jaxadam

CanserDYI said:


> You are comparing forgiving a very specific section of our nation's debt, and not even all of it, a fraction of it in most cases, to giving away a COMPLETELY luxury item as an iPhone 13 to everyone. Just saying, that doesn't make any sense at all, and actually is a pretty insulting comparison to a lot of people.



Yeah man but what about buying a car and not getting one?! That’s exactly what this is like! Paying for college but not being allowed in the classroom for four years! Highway robbery!


----------



## /wrists

jaxadam said:


> Yeah man but what about buying a car and not getting one?! That’s exactly what this is like! Paying for college but not being allowed in the classroom for four years! Highway robbery!


huh?

Where are you buying your cars and not getting one?

I think the students who paid for college and were not able to set foot in the classroom should be refunded or have their loans partially forgiven for the time they were not able to do so. If they graduated with a degree during that time while not being able to set foot in the classroom, I still think they should be partially refunded. It should happen on a as needed basis.

What shouldn't happen is blanket 10K forgiveness across the board. It's disproportionate. 

As I said, is it equality or equity that you're for? Can't be both.


----------



## profwoot

In response to some continued snickering at liberal arts degrees, and in the wake of the recent rise of a new American religion whose doctrines include "everyone we don't like is a cannibalistic pedo", I'd just like to point out that a few more people familiar with how cults are formed, how fascist movements get started, how religions work, how to evaluate an argument, which sources are trustworthy, mob dynamics, etc., might have been useful.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> huh?
> 
> Where are you buying your cars and not getting one?


He's making fun of an argument I made that he doesn't understand


----------



## jaxadam

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> He's making fun of an argument I made that he doesn't understand



Then explain it to me. How is buying a car and not getting one like paying for an education… and getting one?

But use really simple terms so I can understand.


----------



## CanserDYI

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Actually he's right that data-connected phones are a necessity and fortunately the government already agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers
> 
> 
> NEW REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW OF USAC DECISIONS: Any party (including, but not limited to entities filing an FCC Form 499, federal universal service program applicants, and service providers) that wishes to file an appeal of a USAC decision must first seek review of that decision by appealing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fcc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not iPhones but there is help.


That was literally my job for like 3 years, I was the one on the other end of the line making sure these people DO deserve phones, doing background checks on them to make sure their claims of poverty and health issues line up with what they say they do.

And trust me, not even homeless people want those phones. I used to set them up too and they're slower than 90's PC's.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and my direct boss got caught stealing $63 Million dollars and double subscribing a lot of these low income people and inflating the numbers to the gubment.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/23/this-ceo-allegedly-stole-millions-low-income-phone-subscribers-pay-ferrari-private-jet-florida-condo/



This also shows why capitalism has poisoned the well, with capitalist mindsets in power, we will always have fucks abusing the system. And ironically its usually the rich, not the poor, abusing these systems.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> That was literally my job for like 3 years, I was the one on the other end of the line making sure these people DO deserve phones, doing background checks on them to make sure their claims of poverty and health issues line up with what they say they do.
> 
> And trust me, not even homeless people want those phones. I used to set them up too and they're slower than 90's PC's.
> 
> EDIT: Oh yeah, and my direct boss got caught stealing $63 Million dollars and double subscribing a lot of these low income people and inflating the numbers to the gubment.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/23/this-ceo-allegedly-stole-millions-low-income-phone-subscribers-pay-ferrari-private-jet-florida-condo/
> 
> 
> 
> This also shows why capitalism has poisoned the well, with capitalist mindsets in power, we will always have fucks abusing the system. And ironically its usually the rich, not the poor, abusing these systems.


Unironically, scum will be scum. Has nothing to do with the rich or the poor.


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> Unironically, scum will be scum. Has nothing to do with the rich or the poor.


I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

These social programs set up are constantly criticized by the right and the rich saying people will abuse the money given out, and 99% of the time, its the rich abusing them. Not sure how that led to your statement is what I'm asking.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

jaxadam said:


> Then explain it to me. How is buying a car and not getting one like paying for college and getting an education?


There are two points you missed. First, it's not buying a car and not getting one. It's taking a loan for a car, and gambling that you may or may not get one. And then some dick says "you weren't paying for the transportation you were only paying for the car you should have done your research and found out that this dealer doesn't guarantee a car". Possibly not the best argument I've ever made. Very easy to make fun of, which is why I just let you make fun of it instead of typing out this whole nerd explanation here.

Point two is, I think we disagree on what you're taking student loans out for. You think that the end goal is the piece of paper and that's all that we were promised. I think the end goal is the career prospects that were promised. When you sign up for college you get all sorts of pamphlets containing job placement statistics, graduation rates, starting salaries for different sectors based on your field (this last one may be less common but I got one). Four years later this info did not hold up despite being correct at the time.

This is the key: 35k loans for a 70k job is a good investment. 35k loans for a 25k job when you were told you'd have a 70k job is what screwed so many people over.

The core of my argument was: people were told the money was going to something that they never received. You don't agree with what the money was going toward and that's fine.


----------



## nightflameauto

evade said:


> So fix the rich get richer and the poor get poorer issue first. Remember the tax the 1% more?
> 
> What's being done about that?


"Trees? What trees? That's a fucking forest over there. There ain't any fuckin' trees, ya dumbass!"


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.
> 
> These social programs set up are constantly criticized by the right and the rich saying people will abuse the money given out, and 99% of the time, its the rich abusing them. Not sure how that led to your statement is what I'm asking.


That's not a biased outlook at all. It's the rich abusing x, so rich people are generally abusing system. 

Poor people would never abuse the system when given an opportunity. 

Instead of looking at it as, "People in power, regardless of their financial status, tend to abuse it." well known theory...


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> Millions of students in a select period of time. Students outside of this time period essentially got fucked. Students who paid their loans OFF a day before probably won't see a return. Doesn't mean they weren't struggling. Is it fair to them? (Equality?)


You don't know the difference between inequality and inequity. Those that paid off their loans don't need relief. Admit that you are just holding a grudge and be done with it.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Point two is, I think we disagree on what you're taking student loans out for. You think that the end goal is the piece of paper and that's all that we were promised. I think the end goal is the career prospects that were promised. When you sign up for college you get all sorts of pamphlets containing job placement statistics, graduation rates, starting salaries for different sectors based on your field (this last one may be less common but I got one). Four years later this info did not hold up despite being correct at the time.
> 
> 
> The core of my argument was: people were told the money was going to something that they never received. You don't agree with what the money was going toward and that's fine.


Yes, I also disagree with you on this. 

No one promised a job even with the statistics. No one said, once you graduate, Microsoft will beg you to work for them. 

I know a couple of engineers who never applied for jobs and have the audacity to ask, "Why don't companies ask me to work for them?" 

The hubris... 

Who's telling these people they're entitled to a job after college? Is it written out through a contract?


----------



## Drew

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> "you knew what you were doing you were an adult when you took the loans"
> 
> I didn't. None of my friends did. We were told, don't think just do what you have to do to get through college and you'll get a job. When you're a teenager you listen to your parents and teachers and adults who have life experience because they know more than you. I'm lucky I got a job that allows me to pay them back, but I know people with engineering degrees who couldn't get a job after graduation and are doing something random to get by. Nothing is guaranteed. So fuck off with your "gender studies" bs you absolute heartless nutfaces. -sincerely, someone who makes >125k/yr and had no loans forgiven.


Man, THIS thread got heated.  

Yeah, I mean, in some ways education is a lot like health care in the US, where we all pretend it's a free market, but market forces don't factor in at ALL in our consumption decisions. No one asks if going to college is "worth it" economically. Maybe you'll see some people say it's not worth four years of your life, or something, but it's not like 17 year olds are doing breakevens with expected lifetime earnings with and without specific degrees in their bedrooms to determine what to major in, and what's the most they can justify paying as an interest rate on loans before it no longer makes economic sense. 

I say this as someone who won't get a dime from this bill - I think we still have more work to do on the subject of affordability in higher education, but in general I think we all have a collective vested interest in having a well-educated general public, and not having that same general public saddled with unsupportable debt. If nothing else this might buy some time to figure out a better long term solution, and in any event considering the people most likely to be impacted by this are the same ones who graduated into the worst economy their parents had seen in their lives and a period of middle class wage stagnation, there are arguments to be made that the current generation is _uniquely_ fucked here.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> You don't know the difference between inequality and inequity. Those that paid off their loans don't need relief. Admit that you are just holding a grudge and be done with it.


How do you know those who paid off their loans don't need relief? What if they're still struggling or struggling because they paid off their loans? 

You're not looking at this very analytically.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> Who's telling these people they're entitled to a job after college? Is it written out through a contract?


Sounds like you know a couple improbably stupid engineers, but aside from that, colleges usually brag prominently about post-grad employment rates.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> How do you know those who paid off their loans don't need relief? What if they're still struggling or struggling because they paid off their loans?
> 
> You're not looking at this very analytically.


You are looking at it emotionally. You want something. Just say what you want. Do you want a check?


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> Yes, I also disagree with you on this.
> 
> No one promised a job even with the statistics. No one said, once you graduate, Microsoft will beg you to work for them.
> 
> I know a couple of engineers who never applied for jobs and have the audacity to ask, "Why don't companies ask me to work for them?"
> 
> The hubris...
> 
> Who's telling these people they're entitled to a job after college? Is it written out through a contract?


Dude. The generations before us have been saying "go to college, get a good job" "Those with degrees earn x amount higher..." "you know they don't even look what field its in when they hire you, they just look for a degree, go to college" for our ENTIRE LIVES.


----------



## Drew

LordIronSpatula said:


> Not to mention that along with the stagnant wages, the price of even state schools has skyrocketed. The cost of tuition in the CSU system basically doubled in the window of time between me paying attention and me being able to go.


That has a lot to do with demand, which in turn has a lot to do with access to student loans. You lever up a student's ability to take on debt, and tuition is going to rise. 

Sort of irrelevant here, save that this act doesn't do a lot to help the long term affordability problem, and in some ways may make it worse. Not sure where we go from here though, but again, if this at least buys us time, then that's not necessarily a waste.


----------



## /wrists

Drew said:


> Sounds like you know a couple improbably stupid engineers, but aside from that, colleges usually brag prominently about post-grad employment rates.


They do brag about it, but cigarette companies brag about their product too. A lot of people are saying schools shouldn't be a business, but it is. I went to school knowing that and I chose to believe what made sense to me. Being promised a job after college was not a believable statement. At no point did I think, I can be a straight C student, graduate with a diploma and expect an offer. 

Now if I didn't go to any of the career fairs where professionals are networking for jobs and offering internships that turn into full time positions within 3 months, who do I blame? Myself or this ever so corrupt system?


----------



## ArtDecade

CanserDYI said:


> Dude. The generations before us have been saying "go to college, get a good job" "Those with degrees earn x amount higher..." "you know they don't even look what degree its in when they hire you, they just look for a degree" for our ENTIRE LIVES.


Meanwhile, they could afford college by working a job during the summer and there was no such thing as a credit report when they applied for a car or a mortgage.


----------



## jaxadam

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Possibly not the best argument I've ever made.



Agreed.


----------



## Drew

CanserDYI said:


> Dude. The generations before us have been saying "go to college, get a good job" "Those with degrees earn x amount higher..." "you know they don't even look what field its in when they hire you, they just look for a degree, go to college" for our ENTIRE LIVES.


Sad thing is, in some ways, that's true. I have a literature degree from one of these highly prestigious private liberal arts colleges, and while when I was initially getting into finance that was a little bit of an impediment, today no one cares what I studied, so much as WHERE I studied.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

CanserDYI said:


> Dude. The generations before us have been saying "go to college, get a good job" "Those with degrees earn x amount higher..." "you know they don't even look what field its in when they hire you, they just look for a degree, go to college" for our ENTIRE LIVES.


And it was true for them. And now they turn around and tell you you were stupid for listening and you're "infantilizing" 18 year olds for thinking that their parents and teachers were a good resource.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> Dude. The generations before us have been saying "go to college, get a good job" "Those with degrees earn x amount higher..." "you know they don't even look what field its in when they hire you, they just look for a degree, go to college" for our ENTIRE LIVES.


Maybe because that's what worked for them before the market got saturated with useless Bachelor degrees and a company can't hire everyone with a degree. Is that the company's fault, the school's fault, the government's fault, or the student's fault?

Being a qualified and competitive candidate with the appropriate network and references gets you a job. College and university is a good place to start developing those qualities and making those connections.

Notice I didn't say anything about working hard.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> Meanwhile, they could afford college by working a job during the summer and there was no such thing as a credit report when they applied for a car or a mortgage.


You can still go to community college under these circumstances...


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> They do brag about it, but cigarette companies brag about their product too. A lot of people are saying schools shouldn't be a business, but it is. I went to school knowing that and I chose to believe what made sense to me. Being promised a job after college was not a believable statement. At no point did I think, I can be a straight C student, graduate with a diploma and expect an offer.
> 
> Now if I didn't go to any of the career fairs where professionals are networking for jobs and offering internships that turn into full time positions within 3 months, who do I blame? Myself or this ever so corrupt system?


I think you're conflating for-profit and non-profit/public schools here. 

I also think you're veering away from the original topic here - I'm pretty sure every single American with student debt today wasn't a straight C student who skipped every career fair; I don't think it's a fair assumption that any student today who is eligible for loan forgiveness only has loans because they're lazy.


----------



## CanserDYI

ArtDecade said:


> Meanwhile, they could afford college by working a job during the summer and there was no such thing as a credit report when they applied for a car or a mortgage.





Drew said:


> Sad thing is, in some ways, that's true. I have a literature degree from one of these highly prestigious private liberal arts colleges, and while when I was initially getting into finance that was a little bit of an impediment, today no one cares what I studied, so much as WHERE I studied.





Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> And it was true for them. And now they turn around and tell you you were stupid for listening and you're "infantilizing" 18 year olds for thinking that their parents and teachers were a good resource.





evade said:


> Maybe because that's what worked for them before the market got saturated with useless Bachelor degrees and a company can't hire everyone with a degree. Is that the company's fault, the school's fault, the government's fault, or the student's fault?
> 
> Being a qualified and competitive candidate with the appropriate network and references gets you a job. College and university is a good place to start developing those qualities and making those connections.
> 
> Notice I didn't say anything about working hard.


My point was that "they" definitely did push it on us that we'd be pretty much guaranteed a good job if we went to college, where Evade asked "who ever said *this*?". The entire generation before us did.


----------



## /wrists

Drew said:


> I think you're conflating for-profit and non-profit/public schools here.
> 
> I also think you're veering away from the original topic here - I'm pretty sure every single American with student debt today wasn't a straight C student who skipped every career fair; I don't think it's a fair assumption that any student today who is eligible for loan forgiveness only has loans because they're lazy.


We're all down the rabbit hole at this point. It's impossible to have a productive discussion without viewing the whole picture and I'm also playing devil's advocate. 

I'm in agreement that every American is NOT a straight C student who skipped career fair, but I was almost that person. But my last quarter I stumbled into a career fair dressed in a t shirt and got a job lined up after I graduated and it took me 15 minutes of talking.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> My point was that "they" definitely did push it on us that we'd be pretty much guaranteed a good job if we went to college, where Evade asked "who ever said *this*?". The entire generation before us did.


And they maybe they were wrong or weren't aware of the context of the times they were raising their children in? So do we find a way to resolve that issue or forgive student loans and have this cycle repeat? Even with more manageable loan terms, it doesn't really solve the issue of not getting a job. It's a different issue altogether.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> We're all down the rabbit hole at this point. It's impossible to have a productive discussion without viewing the whole picture and I'm also playing devil's advocate.
> 
> I'm in agreement that every American is NOT a straight C student who skipped career fair, but I was almost that person. But my last quarter I stumbled into a career fair dressed in a t shirt and got a job lined up after I graduated and it took me 15 minutes of talking.


I went to multiple career fairs dressed in a tailored suit with resumes printed and didn't get a job or internship from any. Your anecdote is as useless as mine.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I went to multiple career fairs dressed in a tailored suit with resumes printed and didn't get a job or internship from any. Your anecdote is useless.


Maybe you weren't the right fit.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> You can still go to community college under these circumstances...


Great. Say it for the people in the back... why are you against your fellow Americans getting relief?


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> And they maybe they were wrong or weren't aware of the context of the times they were raising their children in? So do we find a way to resolve that issue or forgive student loans and have this cycle repeat? Even with more manageable loan terms, it doesn't really solve the issue of not getting a job. It's a different issue altogether.


Explain to me how forgiving $10k worth of debt for a fraction of debtors would make the cycle repeat?


----------



## jaxadam

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I went to multiple career fairs dressed in a tailored suit with resumes printed and didn't get a job or internship from any. Your anecdote is as useless as mine.



I can't believe the local car dealership didn't hire you immediately!


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> And they maybe they were wrong or weren't aware of the context of the times they were raising their children in? So do we find a way to resolve that issue or forgive student loans and have this cycle repeat? Even with more manageable loan terms, it doesn't really solve the issue of not getting a job. It's a different issue altogether.


no but it literally does. If you don't get a job and you can't pay you get your loans forgiven after 10 years.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> Great. Say it for the people in the back... why are you against your fellow Americans getting relief?


Because it doesn't address any of the issues we're claiming that it resolves. It's just a treatment for the symptoms of an issue that is rooted deeper than 10K and loan terms.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> no but it literally does. If you don't get a job and you can't pay you get your loans forgiven after 10 years.


If you don't find a job after 10 years, maybe you need to reflect on what you're doing wrong instead of blaming the system.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

jaxadam said:


> I can't believe the local car dealership didn't hire you immediately!


I have received a job offer from every job I've had an interview for; I am qualified. I was pointing out the absurdity of applying his anecdote to everyone by giving an equally useless counterexample.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> Because it doesn't address any of the issues we're claiming that it resolves. It's just a treatment for the symptoms of an issue that is rooted deeper than 10K and loan terms.


In a time of gas prices sky rocketing, rents going ever upward, and the worst inflation we've seen in a generation, you don't see putting money into the pockets of Americans as a good thing. Got it.


----------



## jaxadam

Not everyone is willing to jump on their first employment opportunity. When I graduated, the local grocery store had an opening that needed to be filled, packing meat in the rear, but I was the only one of my friends interested.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> We're all down the rabbit hole at this point. It's impossible to have a productive discussion without viewing the whole picture and I'm also playing devil's advocate.
> 
> I'm in agreement that every American is NOT a straight C student who skipped career fair, but I was almost that person. But my last quarter I stumbled into a career fair dressed in a t shirt and got a job lined up after I graduated and it took me 15 minutes of talking.


So, maybe it's worth pausing and considering that you probably just got extremely lucky, with your career path, and it probably wasn't as easy for a lot of the probabl-harder-working students in America as it was for you? 

I know I got lucky. Beyond the simple genetic lottery factors that ended with me going to a very prestigious school, I graduated with a literature degree and very little in the way of plans on what to do with it. I ended up on my current career path thanks entirely to a chance encounter while working at a Banana Republic of all places, where a customer offered to pass along my resume to the financial services firm she worked for if I wanted to give finance a try. Dumb luck, solely because I had joked about dropping a fucking _lot_ of money on a degree that I was now using to sell $80 khakis I could kind of afford with my employee discount. 

Just because I got lucky and had the raw ability to run with it when given an opportunity, doesn't make me automatically better than people like me who just didn't get those breaks. If this move helps those people and gives them a bit of a leg up, well, I'm not going to begrudge them for that, and I'd much rather see my tax money go to this than to blowing up a Middle Eastern village and inspiring a new generation of jihadists, you know?


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> In a time of gas prices sky rocketing, rents going ever upward, and the worst inflation we've seen in a generation, you don't see putting money into the pockets of Americans as a good thing. Got it.


It;s actually going to be a little problematic for inflation in 2023 - no immediate impact since debt payments are on hold, but since we're dealing with a supply shock, the unpleasant reality is if the Fed wants to stop inflation, they need to decrease aggregare purchasing power until it aligns with supply. But that's a WHOLE differtent can of worms, and the good news is there isn't likely to be much of an immediate effect, save for possible "wealth effect" stuff.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> It;s actually going to be a little problematic for inflation in 2023 - no immediate impact since debt payments are on hold, but since we're dealing with a supply shock, the unpleasant reality is if the Fed wants to stop inflation, they need to decrease aggregare purchasing power until it aligns with supply. But that's a WHOLE differtent can of worms, and the good news is there isn't likely to be much of an immediate effect, save for possible "wealth effect" stuff.


Seeing as how most of this money will probably be folded back into their credit card debt, I don't expect much of this money to cross paths with supply shock.


----------



## ArtDecade

jaxadam said:


> packing meat in the rear


That sounds like a pretty sweet job. How much does that sorta work pay?


----------



## /wrists

Drew said:


> So, maybe it's worth pausing and considering that you probably just got extremely lucky, with your career path, and it probably wasn't as easy for a lot of the probabl-harder-working students in America as it was for you?
> 
> I know I got lucky. Beyond the simple genetic lottery factors that ended with me going to a very prestigious school, I graduated with a literature degree and very little in the way of plans on what to do with it. I ended up on my current career path thanks entirely to a chance encounter while working at a Banana Republic of all places, where a customer offered to pass along my resume to the financial services firm she worked for if I wanted to give finance a try. Dumb luck, solely because I had joked about dropping a fucking _lot_ of money on a degree that I was now using to sell $80 khakis I could kind of afford with my employee discount.
> 
> Just because I got lucky and had the raw ability to run with it when given an opportunity, doesn't make me automatically better than people like me who just didn't get those breaks. If this move helps those people and gives them a bit of a leg up, well, I'm not going to begrudge them for that, and I'd much rather see my tax money go to this than to blowing up a Middle Eastern village and inspiring a new generation of jihadists, you know?



That McDonalds story where I was using public WiFi to learn about the industry I was going to be in, in high school because my parents would turn off the router at home because they were worried I was obsessed with technology was true. Did I get lucky? Maybe, but did I work my ass off to get where I am, also yes. 

I wasn't given any specific opportunities, I made the most of what I had, literally a $200 iPod touch that I bought from a friend after scrounging for quarters under vending machines and saving money given to me from grandparents etc. My parents didn't buy me that iPod. 

I was 14. 

I went to McDonalds and studied on the topics that interested me on an iPod and eventually turned it into a career after taking out loans in college. 


I just want to know exactly where I got lucky compared to, say, your situation.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> Explain to me how forgiving $10k worth of debt for a fraction of debtors would make the cycle repeat?


The next group of students who can't a job will still be in debt?


----------



## jaxadam

ArtDecade said:


> That sounds like a pretty sweet job. How much does that sorta work pay?



I told ‘em I’d just do it for beer and I don’t even drink!


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> The next group of students who can't a job will still be in debt?


the next group of students who can't get a job won't have their debt crush their finances forever


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> The next group of students who can't a job will still be in debt?


You act as if the entire fight stops with this one little milestone of "relief", and that's all we are fighting for...

This isn't a win.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> You act as if the entire fight stops with this one little milestone of "relief", and that's all we are fighting for...
> 
> This isn't a win.


Some people say it's setting precedence for the future or it's a step in the right direction, but few are considering what if it's not a step in the right direction and what if this relief happens to be counterproductive?

What if this inspires future generations not to go to college? They won't have their loans forgiven or maybe they saw that things got so bad that if they're loans weren't forgiven, they would have "crushing financial debt" that they wouldn't be able to work off of? 

What if they expect their loans to be forgiven and refuse to pay because they've seen this happen?

I mean these are the same "young adults" who don't know what they're doing when they signed away their financial health right? 

I'm not saying this is necessarily going to happen, but holy shit if I should bring this up to consider, I must be the casual Fox news enjoyer.


----------



## /wrists

In any case, anyone can sign their life to the military and not be in ANY debt for education because the military will pay for it. 

There were a couple of people who said the government is a net good, so I mean, align that with your values and work for the good guys and they'll take care of you. Maybe you'll end up dead in Iraq, but overall, they're doing good things.


----------



## StevenC

I'm not reading this thread anymore because the problem is trivial to solve and the conflict is manufactured


----------



## /wrists

StevenC said:


> I'm not reading this thread anymore because the problem is trivial to solve


What exactly is the problem? Is it not being able to get a job after college or not being able to get a good job after college? Is it student loans or is it false promises? Is it misinformation or lack of independent research? Is it not going to the right college or not studying the right course? I'm not entirely sure at this point or is it simply 10K forgiveness and better loan terms is the solution to all these problems?


----------



## Jonathan20022

StevenC said:


> I'm not reading this thread anymore because the problem is trivial to solve



The forum format is not good for political discourse at all, what a mess.


----------



## tedtan

evade said:


> I just want to know exactly where I got lucky compared to, say, your situation.


You said that your parents had immigrated to the States. What if they hadn’t? What if you had been born in North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Guatemala, or Equatorial Guinea?


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> That McDonalds story where I was using public WiFi to learn about the industry I was going to be in, in high school because my parents would turn off the router at home because they were worried I was obsessed with technology was true. Did I get lucky? Maybe, but did I work my ass off to get where I am, also yes.
> 
> I wasn't given any specific opportunities, I made the most of what I had, literally a $200 iPod touch that I bought from a friend after scrounging for quarters under vending machines and saving money given to me from grandparents etc. My parents didn't buy me that iPod.
> 
> I was 14.
> 
> I went to McDonalds and studied on the topics that interested me on an iPod and eventually turned it into a career after taking out loans in college.
> 
> 
> I just want to know exactly where I got lucky compared to, say, your situation.


But, the point I was making here, was there are hundreds of thousands to probably millions of Americans out there who worked as hard if not harder than you, and didn't get lucky. And, I don't want to downplay my own work either, I was a straight A honors/AP student in high school, fourth or fifth in my class, was on the dean's list often enough that I'm actually not sure if it was every semester or only most semesters in college, and graduated cum laude. I didn't have a career in mind, but I figured if I worked my ass off and got into and graduated from an elite college with honors then the details would sort themselves out. 

And I don't even know for sure if I was wrong for thinking that, is the kicker, because in some ways we do create our own luck, and having a college you could name drop, and a lot of the soft skills that come with four years at a place like that, DOES open a lot of doors. But which doors they are and how they open are all factors outside of my control, so I'm well aware I'm not "better" than people who just didn't get the lucky breaks I did, when I did, at the times I did. 

And, making this a conversation about whether people who are going to have some of their debt forgiven "deserve" it because it's implied they only have debt because they didn't work hard enough, fundamentally misses the point, I think. If all it took in life to get ahead was hard work, a lot of hardworking people I know would be way better off than they are, and Donald Trump would be begging for spare change on a street corner in Manhattan.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> I'm not reading this thread anymore because the problem is trivial to solve and the conflict is manufactured


 

You know, one of the simpler things we could do here is look at the interest rates we lend at. 

This has always kind of blown my mind, but student debt is bankruptcy-remote; if you declare bankruptcy, you can consolidate a lot of forms of debt, but not student loans, presumably because otherwise every grad would immediately declare bankruptcy upon graduation, have their debt wiped away, have banged up credit for six years or whatever, and then be scott free. But, we lend to students at a pretty sizable spread over the risk free rate, which implies there is default risk. 

So, fix that. If you're borrowing for ten years, pay interest at the same rate as the ten year treasury. It's not a total solution into and of itself, but it'll at least cut down on the spiraling interest component. 

I also think in-state tuition for public schools should be a lot closer to $0 than it is, which in turn will pull down some of the cost of private tuition just by making it a lot more expensive on a relative basis, but that'll probably have to be done at the state level.


----------



## /wrists

tedtan said:


> You said that your parents had immigrated to the States. What if they hadn’t? What if you had been born in North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Guatemala, or Equatorial Guinea?


Then I would have a different set of problems to consider, wouldn't I? Probably a lot more multi-faceted than just financial debt...


Drew said:


> But, the point I was making here, was there are hundreds of thousands to probably millions of Americans out there who worked as hard if not harder than you, and didn't get lucky. And, I don't want to downplay my own work either, I was a straight A honors/AP student in high school, fourth or fifth in my class, was on the dean's list often enough that I'm actually not sure if it was every semester or only most semesters in college, and graduated cum laude. I didn't have a career in mind, but I figured if I worked my ass off and got into and graduated from an elite college with honors then the details would sort themselves out.
> 
> And I don't even know for sure if I was wrong for thinking that, is the kicker, because in some ways we do create our own luck, and having a college you could name drop, and a lot of the soft skills that come with four years at a place like that, DOES open a lot of doors. But which doors they are and how they open are all factors outside of my control, so I'm well aware I'm not "better" than people who just didn't get the lucky breaks I did, when I did, at the times I did.
> 
> And, making this a conversation about whether people who are going to have some of their debt forgiven "deserve" it because it's implied they only have debt because they didn't work hard enough, fundamentally misses the point, I think. If all it took in life to get ahead was hard work, a lot of hardworking people I know would be way better off than they are, and Donald Trump would be begging for spare change on a street corner in Manhattan.


I mostly agree with you actually because there's nothing to disagree with you. Potentially I misdirected a point of whether or not people "deserve" the forgiveness. I think it's better I rephrase it because through the conversation I think my position is more solidified. I have no issues with the people receiving the debt because it wasn't really up to them. I have more of an issue with the way it was executed, perhaps why it was executed the way it was, and the timing of it, etc. I also have an issue with people thinking this was a great step with no consequences to society as a whole and that because of their own beliefs and anecdotes that this was absolutely a step in the right direction and playing devil's advocate makes someone quite literally the devil.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> Then I would have a different set of problems to consider, wouldn't I? Probably a lot more multi-faceted than just financial debt...
> 
> I mostly agree with you actually because there's nothing to disagree with you. Potentially I misdirected a point of whether or not people "deserve" the forgiveness. I think it's better I rephrase it because through the conversation I think my position is more solidified. I have no issues with the people receiving the debt because it wasn't really up to them. I have more of an issue with the way it was executed, perhaps why it was executed the way it was, and the timing of it, etc. I also have an issue with people thinking this was a great step with no consequences to society as a whole and that because of their own beliefs and anecdotes that this was absolutely a step in the right direction and playing devil's advocate makes someone quite literally the devil.


You know the old saying about a rising tide lifting all the ships? Well, there are a lot of Americans that are feeling shackles being removed. This is a good thing. At this moment, the government is working for the many and not the elite.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> You know the old saying about a rising tide lifting all the ships? Well, there are a lot of Americans that are feeling shackles being removed. This is a good thing. At this moment, the government is working for the many and not the elite.


Except this is a binary perspective. Those who don't need the relief shouldn't be considered the elite and those who worked off their loans are not automatically financially well off. Just because someone paid off their loans doesn't necessarily mean they were in a position to, it just means they had to. Why are we leaving those people out? They're still not working for the many. They're working for the select few relatively speaking.


----------



## /wrists

Absolutely insane that this thread was made in 2020 haha, I thought it was made recently.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> *I have more of an issue with the way it was executed, perhaps why it was executed the way it was, and the timing of it, etc.* I also have an issue with people thinking this was a great step with no consequences to society as a whole and that because of their own beliefs and anecdotes that this was absolutely a step in the right direction and playing devil's advocate makes someone quite literally the devil.


So, this is probably a way more interesting thing to talk about, particularly the bolded part. 

What ARE your issues with the way it was executed and the timing? 

i think as far as consequences, well, there were consequences to partial debt forgiveness, but there were also consequences to NOT forgiving debt, and it's at least worth noting that one of the reasons we're seeing home purchasing by millenials at a rate below that of previous generations is millenials have higher existing debt burdens, most of it student debt, than previous generations. There are some pretty major macroeconomic consequences when an entire generation stops buying houses because they can't afford to. Will there be unintended consequences from this move? Almost certainly, and my back-of-envelope sense is that inflation will be a fgew tenths of a point higher next year for it (though it's already falling fairly quickly here and the Fed does seem to be getting the upper hand). But there are conseuences, intended or otherwise, from NOT acting too. 

And I think it's worth remembering the historical context of a "devil's advocate," as basically a glorified background check for papal candidates; the intent was to find all the possible bad stuff and hopefully find there was none, with an eye on making the case of the eventual papal elevation _stronger_. Being a devil's advocate means looking for weaknesses to make them stronger, not just perpetually being contrarian because you want to. The latter, past a point, and you're not being a devil's advocate, you're legitimately arguing _against_ something. And I think that's why you feel like people are interpreting what you're saying is devil's advocacy as literally being the devil - because, from here, it looks an awful lot like you ARE opposed to partial tuition forgiveness.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> Except this is a binary perspective. Those who don't need the relief shouldn't be considered the elite and those who worked off their loans are not automatically financially well off. Just because someone paid off their loans doesn't necessarily mean they were in a position to, it just means they had to. Why are we leaving those people out? They're still not working for the many. They're working for the select few relatively speaking.


Just admit what you are - selfish. You don't want others to have something you didn't get - and that is just pathetic. Maybe you are just a shitty human...?


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> Just admit what you are - selfish. You don't want others to have something you didn't get - and that is just pathetic. Maybe you are just a shitty human...?


I'm okay with admitting that I'm selfish at the end of the day because I'm out for myself. I don't necessarily want others to not have what I didn't have (that's primarily your assumption), but I'm okay with you viewing my outlook on life as pathetic and shitty. Hopefully when others disagree with you, you are able to inherit the same feedback.

Imagine telling people to admit that they're being selfish when my position was literally questioning about the people who were left out that wasn't myself. lol

Could interpret anything as selfish. Even if this was the right call, systematically improving society so that it can benefit others, you would still be reaping the benefits as you are part of society. Selfish, just a different degree of it.

I will respond to Drew after my call.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> I'm okay with admitting that I'm selfish at the end of the day because I'm out for myself. I don't necessarily want others to not have what I didn't have (that's primarily your assumption), but I'm okay with you viewing my outlook on life as pathetic and shitty. Hopefully when others disagree with you, you are able to inherit the same feedback.
> 
> Imagine telling people to admit that they're being selfish when my position was literally questioning about the people who were left out that wasn't myself. lol
> 
> I will respond to Drew after my call.


If I find out from feedback that I am being a shitty person, I don't own it. I try to fix it.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> If I find out from feedback that I am being a shitty person, I don't own it. I try to fix it.


It's evident that there is no way to change some people's mind and I'm not posting to please you or anyone else. I won't try and appease you so you think I'm not a "shitty person". You're entitled to your views and it would be really shitty for me to tell you that you can't express said views, whether or not you're misinformed. The nice thing about opinions though are that they're subjective, even if it's public consensus. At the end of the day, it's still subjective and are irrelevant and can be replaceable by any other opinion. 

Sort of like my perspective on this particular instance of loan forgiveness.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> It's evident that there is no way to change some people's mind and I'm not sposting to please you or anyone else. I won't try and appease you so you think I'm not a "shitty person". You're entitled to your views and it would be really shitty for me to tell you that you can't express said views, even if you're misinformed.


You do not want people to see debt relief because you want something. That's your take. And, its a lousy one. Maybe try being a part of functioning society rather than just being disruptive of it.


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> You do not want people to see debt relief because you want something. That's your take. And, its a lousy one. Maybe try being a part of functioning society rather than just being disruptive of it.


We all want something though, but that doesn't matter. For one I want you to stop assuming what I want and re-establishing it as an objective truth, but I don't get what I want.

Seems like you want people to think like you because only when people think like you are they a conducive part of functioning society. This is what it appears to be to me, but I'm not asserting your perspective as you are mine.


----------



## jaxadam

ArtDecade said:


> Just admit what you are - selfish. You don't want others to have something you didn't get - and that is just pathetic. Maybe you are just a shitty human...?



How do you feel about this post? I know you and a select other few have carte blanche to post personal attacks and diatribe toward other member with impunity. Do you think we could all benefit from the Post Diatribe With Impunity Relief Act?


----------



## bostjan

evade said:


> We all want something though, but that doesn't matter. For one I want you to stop assuming what I want and re-establishing it as an objective truth, but I don't get what I want.
> 
> Seems like you want people to think like you because only when people think like you are they a conducive part of functioning society. This is what it appears to be to me, but I'm not asserting your perspective as you are mine.


Maybe go back to uni now to get more degrees and don't pay your loans off. Eventually, another debt relief package might come and wipe it all away.

IDK, man. I went to an in-state University and pinched a lot of pennies. I commuted for a couple years from my parent's house, then wheeled and dealed to get cheap housing. I waited tables on weekends, and worked night shift at the main post office, or picked up night shifts at a local pawn shop, to pay whatever tuition I could. I benefitted from lower tuition rates than anyone does nowadays, so I think that the debt forgiveness is fair enough to me, personally.


----------



## ArtDecade

jaxadam said:


> How do you feel about this post? I know you and a select other few have carte blanche to post personal attacks and diatribe toward other member with impunity. Do you think we could all benefit from the Post Diatribe With Impunity Relief Act?


I feel mostly good about it, but I wish the frog would have led with his position that he is upset people are getting something that he isn't rather than dancing around with vague policy issues for a few dozen posts. His issue has nothing to with economics or justice and stems from a personal position of jealousy. I have nothing to gain from people getting their debt forgiven, but I am happy that we are taking care of them. A functioning society patches holes.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

I want a lot of things. None of them are for people’s lives to be worse though. That’s a pretty big defining line for me on calling out assholery


----------



## MASS DEFECT

evade said:


> Why are we leaving those people out?



While I share the mistrust in political systems and politicians, I know some lawmakers really tried to make an effort to include the rest of us in the same situation through the years when it comes to student debt issues. Only to be voted down or vetoed by someone who thinks the proposed measures are unfair, too progressive, or as you said, disproportionate. 

Such are the limits of government. We got to start somewhere.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Do you guys feel like people who refi'd their loans privately who are now ineligible for the forgiveness are also selfish/greedy/shitty human beings because they're not getting their dues?

At what point does the rising tides platitude not just indicate that you yourself are so well off that you're above wanting to also get yours because you went through it.

Because it just reads like you guys find it abhorrent that anyone can have any feelings to this topic other than positive vibes. Yes it is a net good to society, thinking that some people won't feel like they missed out and that those feelings are not somehow valid is insane to me.


----------



## ArtDecade

Jonathan20022 said:


> Because it just reads like you guys find it abhorrent that anyone can have any feelings to this topic other than positive vibes. Yes it is a net good to society, thinking that some people won't feel like they missed out and that those feelings are not somehow valid is insane to me.


There are surely people that feel like they missed out, but opposing it because you didn't qualify feels like a weak stance. It is like rooting against your own team in the Champion's League Final because you didn't play enough minutes to qualify for a medal. I wish there was more relief for lots of people out there. This is as good a starting point as any.


----------



## Jonathan20022

ArtDecade said:


> There are surely people that feel like they missed out, but opposing it because you didn't qualify feels like a weak stance. It is like rooting against your own team in the Champion's League Final because you didn't play enough minutes to qualify for a medal. I wish there was more relief for lots of people out there. This is as good a starting point as any.



Yeah I understand that, I personally wasn't really for the forgiveness last time it was a hot button topic.

Over the last year and a half I've listened to so much discourse on it, that I can understand the net positive it provides. Even so I am still for a far more targeted set of benefits with way more focus on the educational lending system being overhauled.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

fuck the economy dude the world is on fire let's print some fucking M O N E Y


----------



## Drew

Jonathan20022 said:


> Do you guys feel like people who refi'd their loans privately who are now ineligible for the forgiveness are also selfish/greedy/shitty human beings because they're not getting their dues?
> 
> At what point does the rising tides platitude not just indicate that you yourself are so well off that you're above wanting to also get yours because you went through it.
> 
> Because it just reads like you guys find it abhorrent that anyone can have any feelings to this topic other than positive vibes. Yes it is a net good to society, thinking that some people won't feel like they missed out and that those feelings are not somehow valid is insane to me.


That's actually a fairly tricky point - right now, I don't believe the federal government has the ability to forgive private debt, even if it was originally public debt that was privately refinanced, under the HEROES Act.

I guess I'd say that saying forgiving federal debt isn't fair to borrowers who refinanced their federal loans, while from a "how I feel about this subject" standpoint I totally get and those feelins are valid, from a "what actionable steps can be done here" standpoint sort of glosses over the fact that the Biden Administration doesn't have a mechanism to actually do this at their disposal. 

And, I guess, just because one thing isn't possible, doesn't mean we should not do this other thing that is.


----------



## Mathemagician

I like this thread. People debating ideas and even the half I disagree with are at least trying to communicate - for the most part.

Just reiterating that again, loan forgiveness is a start. And that it’s forgiving loans that were acquired at one of the most predatory periods in higher education (the last decade-15yrs or so +/- a few years).

Not everybody benefits directly from loan forgiveness. But everyone benefits when people have more money to spend. So people may be 2 or 3 steps of Kevin Bacon removed but it still helps them by more money going into the local economy.

If business do more sales they then hire more people and that raises wages as businesses compete for labor. Etc etc.

I get what people are saying by this not being a cure-all. But no one said it was. It’s not wrong to wrap a towel around a cut while you get someone to the hospital.

And as for “personal responsibility” it is a valid feeling for those that refinanced privately. They worked with the information they had at the time and made a call. For all anyone knows no one may have forgiven loans ever or for another however many years. They chose to refinance to get a lower rate. And that’s still a valid call.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Drew said:


> That's actually a fairly tricky point - right now, I don't believe the federal government has the ability to forgive private debt, even if it was originally public debt that was privately refinanced, under the HEROES Act.
> 
> I guess I'd say that saying forgiving federal debt isn't fair to borrowers who refinanced their federal loans, while from a "how I feel about this subject" standpoint I totally get and those feelins are valid, from a "what actionable steps can be done here" standpoint sort of glosses over the fact that the Biden Administration doesn't have a mechanism to actually do this at their disposal.
> 
> And, I guess, just because one thing isn't possible, doesn't mean we should not do this other thing that is.



I personally advised 3 of my buddies to take advantage of the pause and just hold. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, living through the payment pause you'd think the unanimous choice would be to just hold the money on the side and pay it near the end of the program since the extensions just kept coming. Many refinanced in February/March of this year because of the rates starting to hike, not unreasonable. But they are incredibly bitter about the forgiveness, and it's clearly not malicious while they are bitter than others are getting it, it is clearly because they made a decision that hurt their eligibility in the last few months. 

Some people have been paying their loans over the last two years which is valid when seen as an opportunity to get ahead of the snowballing. The extensions of the pause pretty much made me feel like it was going to happen anyways at some point.


----------



## /wrists

Wanted to make a point that I think I resonate with.

The reason why people who paid their loans might feel like they were punished was primarily because they worked hard to pay back what they owed because it was a necessity. No one could have foreseen a forgiveness, but the government forgiving a loan is not retroactively fixing the problem.

Now if someone worked hard to pay what the owed back and observed someone reap the benefits of not _*necessarily*_ _*having*_ to work hard to not having to pay back a loan, I could easily empathize with the person not wanting to ever work hard again or be motivated to play by the rules.

It is absolutely fucked to completely disregard the people who have paid their loans. I can see the bigger picture, but a good amount of people who either don't qualify for the loan or are being disproportionately left out is inherently unequal regardless of how you want to argue it. This is inequality. Don't make up some arbitrary scenario about how it's not.

mfw people are "see the bigger picture, but ignore what's happening right in front of you"

huh? 


inb4selfish


----------



## Adieu

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> If people in the situation to benefit from student loan forgiveness could afford to get a mortgage I might be inclined to agree. But as it stands, these people are stuck paying 1k in rent and 500 in student loans so they can't save 10% down for a mortgage, when they could easily make 700 mortgage payments if they didn't have the loans or the rental gouging.



Well thank god for that at least!

I pray that they cannot.

If the housing market jumps because a whole lot of millenials suddenly get debt-forgiven on my (!) debt-free unstimulized dime, I will *never* forgive Democrats for all eternity.

What we need is an engineered housing crash, not loan forgiveness crap.


----------



## hilljack13

So many arguments out on this one. Had the discussion with the wife last night. I paid off my loans years ago and she, unemployed, has over 30K in debt. No doubt I'll end up paying that back plus whatever tax consequence come from this "bailout". I don't see me getting a 10K rebate on what I willingly agreed to pay. 

Now if everyone start complaining about housing, at some point we can get a 10K mortgage forgiveness too. Whats next?


----------



## Randy

Savage.


----------



## /wrists

geohot said:


> Imagine cheating at a board game. Say sneaking $500s from the box in monopoly. Eventually it’s just sad when you win, your friends won’t want to play anymore, and they’ll flip the board over.
> 
> Capitalism is so rigged it isn’t fun anymore. I wish you short sighted fucks in the PMC could actually do something about it. But nah, continue to let the hedge funds buy all the houses, and continue to make building new houses hard. (supply and demand bro gotta pump housecoin) Continue to let huge ad companies (stop calling them tech companies) rent seek and nickel and dime you on everything, and hire psychologists to further bypass your conscious thought. Continue to give massive loans out in exchange for a worthless education, and watch people beg for a government sponsored “education” because they don’t know better.
> 
> I’m going to be so sad when they flip the board over. Because I like capitalism. I like fancy new products, I like beautiful shopping malls, I like luxury apartments. I love America.
> 
> I’m smart, so this scamming and cheating mostly doesn’t affect me. I can see the scams and avoid them. But when those who didn’t avoid the scams come and flip the board over, it will affect me. And it will be the current piece of shit elites to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> Three policy proposals:
> 
> 
> A 500% tax on advertising. It’s a zero sum game with no benefit to society. If you are paying for eyeballs, you pay a 500% tax. Force companies with these trash addictive business models to find a way to work for the average person, not pimp them out.
> 1% tax on the full amount of every trade. Fuck off worthless HFT mega brain drain. Fuck off short termism in markets.
> Separation of church and state. And that includes Harvard, Yale, and all the others. No funding, no loans, no Title IX BS. Separate!
> But I write these, and tbh it doesn’t give me much hope even if it all was law. I see the crypto scams, I see the SPAC scams. It’s a cultural problem.
> 
> I don’t think they see themselves as scammers, I think they actually think quite highly of themselves. I think they live in bubbles where everyone pats them on the back for getting on board with the latest bullshit. Because the back patters are all mired in the same bullshit. “Perception is reality” or some hogwash like that.
> 
> 
> The only real solution is shame.



Based.


----------



## Mathemagician

Check out the official whitehouse twitter. 

They are announcing how much in PPP loans each politician has had forgiven. All the while those same dildos attempt to politicize regular people getting debt forgiveness. 

It’s fine for them/the wealthy to get debt forgiven “that just makes them smart”. 

But when Todd and Amy from Kentucky get $7k in debt forgiven I’m supposed to be mad? FOH.


----------



## narad

How did Vern Buchanan have more than 2.3M in PPP loans? Did he attend Brown for 18 years?

EDIT: ah, the PPP is not pel grant related but the covid relief stuff, and the representatives all had like side companies.


----------



## Grindspine

narad said:


> How did Vern Buchanan have more than 2.3M in PPP loans? Did he attend Brown for 18 years?
> 
> EDIT: ah, the PPP is not pel grant related but the covid relief stuff, and the representatives all had like side companies.


Yeah, paycheck protection. They happily took that loan forgiveness as "small business owners". It really is all about greed for them. It isn't okay for someone to get a "handout" but it is okay for "small business" to get a "tax break". It is all semantics.

I will say that the amount being forgiven makes sense to me, personally. As I said earlier in the thread, I have three university degrees. I worked part-time and summers while in school, but I had nowhere near the financial resources to pay tuition and basic cost of living through my years of education. By the time I graduated, I had tens of thousands in debt. Over the past nine years or so, I have paid on the income-based plans, occasionally getting a letter that suggested paying off interest before it is capitalized. Of course, that random few thousand of interest a year was not easy to pay, so many years, it capitalized. From 2013 to 2019, I had eight thousand dollars of interest added to my total student loan bill *while I was making payments and working multiple jobs*.

GOP politicians bitching that the educated working class getting a student loan partial forgiveness while ignoring the loan forgiveness they have received is just hypocritical. I use my degrees to help diagnose and cure cancer. That is likely far more noble than for whatever their forgiven PPP loans were used.


----------



## Grindspine

bostjan said:


> Maybe go back to uni now to get more degrees and don't pay your loans off. Eventually, another debt relief package might come and wipe it all away.
> 
> IDK, man. I went to an in-state University and pinched a lot of pennies. I commuted for a couple years from my parent's house, then wheeled and dealed to get cheap housing. I waited tables on weekends, and worked night shift at the main post office, or picked up night shifts at a local pawn shop, to pay whatever tuition I could. I benefitted from lower tuition rates than anyone does nowadays, so I think that the debt forgiveness is fair enough to me, personally.


I went to school for a year, dropped out for a couple of years since I could not get assistance from my parents and could not file as an independent student until I turned 23. Even after signing up for financial aid, I worked at gas stations, telemarketing jobs, got my A.A. degree and first hospital job while still working on a B.A. I worked nights and weekends, dropped to being a part-time student to try to make things affordable and keep working. There were literally periods of time where I would work Sunday nights, have nine hours of classes on Monday, work Monday night, have two hours of class on Tuesday, work Tuesday night, then have some time to sleep Wednesday during the day. 

Oh, and I also volunteered for community organizations and held an academic club officer position on campus. The road to finishing my B.A. had a lot of challenges. I earned that degree. I knew that I would finish school with debt. But it is a relief to have some of it reduced after years of working, paying, and still worrying.


----------



## vilk

evade said:


> No one could have foreseen a forgiveness


I did. That's why I haven't paid a penny toward my fed loans (private is a different story of course). Stop infantilizing people who were foolish enough to pay Uncle Sam when anyone who did their research (on ipods at McDonald's or w/e) could have seen the writing on the wall from over a decade ago.

I graduated in '12, and there was already a system set up by the Obama administration for an income driven repayment plan system where if you didn't make enough your monthly payment was 0. Considering how poor most people are and how shitty the economy has been I easily understood that at some point they'd just have to give up. Also I'm pretty sure they had a thing where if you did it for 25 years and still had so much left it would be forgiven, if you jump through all the hoops.

Maybe I'm a "degenerate"... or maybe I'm just smart, and you're not. Maybe you should have done what I did instead of paying it all off like a dope.

I'm halfway kidding, because the downside of it all is that I'm poor... but as someone who has never not been poor, it's not such a big deal. 

Having said all that, 10k off my bill ain't gonna set me free. Then again, this has been going on for 10 years. Does that mean I'll get my (federal) slate wiped? I guess we'll see.


----------



## thraxil

evade said:


> Maybe you weren't the right fit.


Location and timing are also critical. I graduated with an engineering degree from an Ivy... in 2001. Fall semester (late 2000), almost everyone I knew already had jobs lined up with IBM, Motorola, Lucent, etc. Then the dotcom crash happened and every single one of them had their offers rescinded in the spring and by the time we graduated I only knew a handful of people that had jobs.


----------



## StevenC




----------



## budda

Quiet part loud.


----------



## /wrists

Whole thing is stupid, if you feel like you're entitled to not pay for higher education just go to the military where they pay for it. Acting as if that's not an option or is that an option not accessible enough just like community college isn't either.


----------



## /wrists

It was simple vote buying for midterms and taxpayers will have to foot the bill.


----------



## /wrists

StevenC said:


>


Answer me this. 

Do we need a military and do you have to be poverty stricken to enlist in the military?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

evade said:


> It was simple vote buying for midterms and taxpayers will have to foot the bill.



What are taxpayers _paying_ for here? 

Aren't those getting relief also taxpayers?

How does that work?


----------



## StevenC

evade said:


> Answer me this.
> 
> Do we need a military and do you have to be poverty stricken to enlist in the military?


I know I said I wasn't reading this thread anymore, but OK. 

No and no, but demographics suggest rich people have better options. 

Answer me this: do you understand that the only perk of the military is subsidised education gambled against death, and that the original tweet is saying that they need to keep tuition high to make this seem like a winning gamble?


----------



## /wrists

MaxOfMetal said:


> What are taxpayers _paying_ for here?
> 
> Aren't those getting relief also taxpayers?
> 
> How does that work?


Someone else's debt, is that not clear? Even if it was pre-allocated, that money is indirectly being used as payment. Unless I'm wrong and the government is printing out more money that they can't back and a potential negative side effect is that we will see even more inflation in a couple of years, but that's a different topic.

I don't know if those getting relief are also taxpayers, but in theory they probably pay very minimal taxes due to low income according to the context of "financially crushing debt", they technically don't have to be taxpayers.


----------



## /wrists

StevenC said:


> I know I said I wasn't reading this thread anymore, but OK.
> 
> No and no, but demographics suggest rich people have better options.
> 
> Answer me this: do you understand that the only perk of the military is subsidised education gambled against death, and that the original tweet is saying that they need to keep tuition high to make this seem like a winning gamble?


Yes generally speaking richer people have better options in the whole spectrum of life. 

The only perk of the military is not subsidized education, but yes, death is part of the military if you sign up for combat. Believe it or not, most people do not. 

You also answered no, we don't need a military. If you don't think circumstances and the freedoms you enjoy and the privilege of feeling that another nation state isn't going to roll on US soil and try to invade and take us over are due largely to our DoD, then I guess maybe we're on two completely different trains of thought.


----------



## narad

Like a steam engine and a shinkansen.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> the freedoms you enjoy


Ah yes, the US military is largely responsible for the freedoms Northern Ireland enjoys. Srs what are you even doing man


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> Someone else's debt, is that not clear? Even if it was pre-allocated, that money is indirectly being used as payment. Unless I'm wrong and the government is printing out more money that they can't back and a potential negative side effect is that we will see even more inflation in a couple of years, but that's a different topic.
> 
> I don't know if those getting relief are also taxpayers, but in theory they probably pay very minimal taxes due to low income according to the context of "financially crushing debt", they technically don't have to be taxpayers.


I'm going to be peacing out of this conversation after this because, well, it doesn't really impact me and I don't give enough of a fuck to put the time in to explain this decision, but one thing worth noting here. 

College tuition USED to be free at state schools, or at least a good number of them, with NY and CA being by far the two largest systems. That changed under the Reagan administration, and a lot has been made about their motives, referencing "the dangers of an educated proletariat" and whatnot. But, I think there's another side to this that makes a lot of sense to also focus on. 

In the US, like much of the rest of the developed world, advanced education USED to be free, at public universities, if you had the high school grades to get in. When that stopped and when public schools began charging tuitiion, that started a period of fairly rapid price increases in college degrees, both public, but also private. And, for a generation where college was not THAT expensive, seeing their kids go on to get college degrees was a no brainer, regardless of what they cost. 

So, all this talk about responsibility andn fairness kind of misses one giant fundamental unfairness - when $10k of debt is forgiven to peple who still have loans, sure, that might feel a little unfair to people who have paid off their debt.. but the root of that unfairness is the fact they had to take on debt in the first place to get their degrees. The federal goverment shifted the cost of eductation from taxpayers to private citizens. All this does is in part shift some of that burden back. 

Worth thinking about. With that I'm out.I had no college debt anyway, and while I'm happy to have my tax dollars go to living in a more educated society, I'm not really looking to spend hours of my time arguing for why I think that, as a taxpayer who doesn't like being around stupid people, is a pretty good deal.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Ah yes, the US military is largely responsible for the freedoms Northern Ireland enjoys. Srs what are you even doing man


My fault for assuming that someone who was so involved in American political discourse was American.


----------



## /wrists

Drew said:


> I'm going to be peacing out of this conversation after this because, well, it doesn't really impact me and I don't give enough of a fuck to put the time in to explain this decision, but one thing worth noting here.
> 
> College tuition USED to be free at state schools, or at least a good number of them, with NY and CA being by far the two largest systems. That changed under the Reagan administration, and a lot has been made about their motives, referencing "the dangers of an educated proletariat" and whatnot. But, I think there's another side to this that makes a lot of sense to also focus on.
> 
> In the US, like much of the rest of the developed world, advanced education USED to be free, at public universities, if you had the high school grades to get in. When that stopped and when public schools began charging tuitiion, that started a period of fairly rapid price increases in college degrees, both public, but also private. And, for a generation where college was not THAT expensive, seeing their kids go on to get college degrees was a no brainer, regardless of what they cost.
> 
> So, all this talk about responsibility andn fairness kind of misses one giant fundamental unfairness - when $10k of debt is forgiven to peple who still have loans, sure, that might feel a little unfair to people who have paid off their debt.. but the root of that unfairness is the fact they had to take on debt in the first place to get their degrees. The federal goverment shifted the cost of eductation from taxpayers to private citizens. All this does is in part shift some of that burden back.
> 
> Worth thinking about. With that I'm out.I had no college debt anyway, and while I'm happy to have my tax dollars go to living in a more educated society, I'm not really looking to spend hours of my time arguing for why I think that, as a taxpayer who doesn't like being around stupid people, is a pretty good deal.


You would think people would have stopped going to school because goddamn is that a good motivator.

I didn't have this knowledge, previously, and I think it bothers me now more that we had to go to school when it used to be free, although it at least fucked the future generation equally going forward, where as this forgiveness doesn't unfuck people equally.

If this was a systemic issue, we should have a systemic solution and my primary point is that student loan forgiveness is not that.


----------



## /wrists

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Ah yes, the US military is largely responsible for the freedoms Northern Ireland enjoys. Srs what are you even doing man


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army You also have a military, the concept is similar.


----------



## Mathemagician

evade said:


> You would think people would have stopped going to school because goddamn is that a good motivator.
> 
> I didn't have this knowledge, previously, and I think it bothers me now more that we had to go to school when it used to be free, although it at least fucked the future generation equally going forward, where as this forgiveness doesn't unfuck people equally.
> 
> If this was a systemic issue, we should have a systemic solution and my primary point is that student loan forgiveness is not that.



Perfect is the enemy of good. This is a small but positive step. Baby steps often help people see that new things aren’t necessarily scary. It’s like exposure therapy. Test out policies in small steps and see if they have the desired effect. 

Again, when the nightly news and brain dead politicians aren’t trying to politicize mustard flavors, policy can move forward (progresses) at a slow but reasonable pace.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> You would think people would have stopped going to school because goddamn is that a good motivator.
> 
> I didn't have this knowledge, previously, and I think it bothers me now more that we had to go to school when it used to be free, although it at least fucked the future generation equally going forward, where as this forgiveness doesn't unfuck people equally.
> 
> If this was a systemic issue, we should have a systemic solution and my primary point is that student loan forgiveness is not that.


If you think life is hard with college debt, you should try life without a college degree.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

evade said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army You also have a military, the concept is similar.


I'm in America. StevenC is in Ireland. Both of our locations are displayed prominently below our profiles. Srs are you ok you seem to be struggling here


----------



## ArtDecade

"But why don't I get something too?!"


----------



## Edika

I'm so glad I grew up in a country that after a mitary regime and the inevitable fall of that regime, the democratically elected government considered higher education a right for all and since then has been free. You need to pass exams to qualify for the schools but personally, if I lived in any country that I had to pay to go to University, I'd never be able to afford it. Of course our right wing fuckwits want to introduce private Universities and try to reduce the value of public Universities, a classic trick to sell them off to the highest bidder. 

Charging for higher education is clear distinction of which classes can access higher education. Unless you willingly want to ignore the fact that the prices you have to pay for University are so high to exclude poor people and want to believe in a made up fantasy of "hard work" repaying the loans. Maybe it happens to 0.1% of the people getting degrees.

Unless of course you're in the elite anyway and get your dept forgiven as a business expense and then batch about others not paying loans, oh the hypocrisy!


----------



## spudmunkey

evade said:


> .
> 
> If this was a systemic issue, we should have a systemic solution and my primary point is that student loan forgiveness is not that.



A part of this package that doesn't get enough press are the other go-forward benefits. Enough? No...but the $10-20k is the headline grabbing stat and the rest is mostly ignored. The chunk initial forgiveness is a kickstart.


----------



## StevenC

evade said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army You also have a military, the concept is similar.


Hi, again that's a different country than I live in. My army would be the British army which invaded in the 1600s before we had the technology to fight back.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> Hi, again that's a different country than I live in.


----------



## mmr007




----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> I know I said I wasn't reading this thread anymore, but OK.
> 
> No and no, but demographics suggest rich people have better options.
> 
> Answer me this: do you understand that the only perk of the military is subsidised education gambled against death, and that the original tweet is saying that they need to keep tuition high to make this seem like a winning gamble?




TIL

I joined the Army just so I could have an education which I gleefully gambled against death.

God damn @StevenC you really know how to make yourself likeable and smart.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> TIL
> 
> I joined the Army just so I could have an education which I gleefully gambled against death.
> 
> God damn @StevenC you really know how to make yourself likeable and smart.


Where did I say only reason?


----------



## Xaios

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I'm in America. StevenC is in Ireland. Both of our locations are displayed prominently below our profiles. Srs are you ok you seem to be struggling here


This whole thing reminds me of an exchange I was party to in 2017. I was in Vancouver for a Magic: The Gathering tournament along with some local friends, as well as some other guys we occasionally played with who lived just across the border in Alaska. We were at a restaurant (Cactus Club near Metrotown Mall in Burnaby to be specific) shooting the shit after the first day of the tournament, and as things often go, the discussion eventually turned political, as Trump had only been inaugurated a month before. One of the Alaskans was a pretty ardent Trump supporter, and after some back and forth between him and a buddy of mine in which he asked why anyone should show Trump an ounce of respect, Alaskan dude responded "Because he's your president too."

Let me repeat.

He made the argument that Trump was our President.

To a bunch of Canadians.

_In Canada._

After crossing the border to _leave_ the United States.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> Where did I say only reason?


----------



## jaxadam

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I'm in America. StevenC is in Ireland. Both of our locations are displayed prominently below our profiles. Srs are you ok you seem to be struggling here



Maybe he is browsing on his mobile phone in his car he paid for and received, where when viewing in profile mode it does not show location. Srs


----------



## Adieu

Mathemagician said:


> Check out the official whitehouse twitter.
> 
> They are announcing how much in PPP loans each politician has had forgiven. All the while those same dildos attempt to politicize regular people getting debt forgiveness.
> 
> It’s fine for them/the wealthy to get debt forgiven “that just makes them smart”.
> 
> But when Todd and Amy from Kentucky get $7k in debt forgiven I’m supposed to be mad? FOH.



Cute, but why are they of the misconception that everybody peeved at this is a Republican?

I'm very pissed. I'm also not a Republican.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> TIL
> 
> I joined the Army just so I could have an education which I gleefully gambled against death.
> 
> God damn @StevenC you really know how to make yourself likeable and smart.



You know when you retire from the army you can always join the Navy!


----------



## Adieu

evade said:


> It was simple vote buying for midterms and taxpayers will have to foot the bill.



It backfired. They HAD my vote and the stupid buggers just LOST it.


----------



## StevenC

@philkilla you'll have to forgive me because sometimes my eyes are a bit screwy, but I can't for the life of me find the word "reason" in that post?


----------



## Adieu

Grindspine said:


> I will say that the amount being forgiven makes sense to me, personally. As I said earlier in the thread, I have *three university degrees*. I worked part-time and summers while in school, but I had nowhere near the financial resources to pay tuition and basic cost of living through my years of education. By the time I graduated, I had tens of thousands in debt. Over the past nine years or so, I have paid on the income-based plans, occasionally getting a letter that suggested paying off interest before it is capitalized. Of course, that random few thousand of interest a year was not easy to pay, so many years, it capitalized. From 2013 to 2019, I had eight thousand dollars of interest added to my total student loan bill *while I was making payments and working multiple jobs*.
> 
> GOP politicians bitching that the educated working class getting a student loan partial forgiveness while ignoring the loan forgiveness they have received is just hypocritical. I use my degrees to help diagnose and cure cancer. That is likely far more noble than for whatever their forgiven PPP loans were used.



But WHY should the public who DON'T have 3 degrees to capitalize on in the future foot the bill for your choices???

I mean, surely, at least the THIRD degree that you were struggling to pay for was a personal whim and a questionable choice?!

IRS calls a business that loses money 3 years in a row a HOBBY and stops letting you make deductions. This here isn't 3 years, it's 3 degrees... that passed hobby and went the way of compulsions or addictions IMHO.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> @philkilla you'll have to forgive me because sometimes my eyes are a bit screwy, but I can't for the life of me find the word "reason" in that post?



TIL "perk" and "reason" aren't useful words if you're a blatant useless asshole.


----------



## jaxadam

Not a lot of people know this, but when @philkilla was in Afghanistan, I told him to bring me back sonething, so he brought me one of those fancy blankets you put on the back of your couch. He got it at an Afghanistan afghan stand.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> TIL "perk" and "reason" aren't useful words if you're a blatant useless asshole.


Seems unnecessary, but they're blatantly not synonyms and I was blatantly not using them synonymously. Like just in the context of that and my previous post it's very blatant that I chose perk, to mean incentive, in the capacity of choosing the military as a career (a thing where "perks" are often discussed).

I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with the phrase "perks of the job"; I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> Seems unnecessary, but they're blatantly not synonyms and I was blatantly not using them synonymously. Like just in the context of that and my previous post it's very blatant that I chose perk, to mean incentive, in the capacity of choosing the military as a career (a thing where "perks" are often discussed).
> 
> I'm sorry if you're unfamiliar with the phrase "perks of the job"; I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee.



Yeah but I don’t think Phil has lived in Tennessee long enough to get the complimentary Jack Daniels Distillery tour. Imagine the perks of the job there!


----------



## philkilla

Be StevenC

Say hateful disingenuous shit towards people he doesn't like 

Get called out for it

Say derogatory shit towards people that call him out


----------



## MASS DEFECT

It's very interesting to note the American and European reactions to this topic. It reflects the amount of social services and opportunities available to each and the culture towards free socialized education vs taxpayer priorities.

Like for Americans, "Why should I pay for your choices?"
But for Europeans or equally developed nations with Govt Funded Fundamental Tertiary Education: "K. Cool. Congrats guys. Way to go. Welcome to the 21st century."

And just compare the literacy and competitive metrics between Americans and Europeans of the same age, income, and tertiary education level.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Be StevenC
> 
> Say hateful disingenuous shit towards people he doesn't like
> 
> Get called out for it
> 
> Say derogatory shit towards people that call him out


Report me


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> Report me



That doesn’t work for you. You’re one of the chosen ones and your reports get scrubbed.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> That doesn’t work for you. You’re one of the chosen ones and your reports get scrubbed.


I know he's you're buddy, but he decided to imagine a slight against him and was wrong. I'll happily accept an apology for him calling me an asshole for the slight he imagined and let it be water under the bridge, but he doesn't seem keen so sarcasm it is.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

Adieu said:


> But WHY should the public who DON'T have 3 degrees to capitalize on in the future foot the bill for your choices???
> 
> I mean, surely, at least the THIRD degree that you were struggling to pay for was a personal whim and a questionable choice?!
> 
> IRS calls a business that loses money 3 years in a row a HOBBY and stops letting you make deductions. This here isn't 3 years, it's 3 degrees... that passed hobby and went the way of compulsions or addictions IMHO.


I can't tell if you're serious. You know a PhD is 3 degrees right? Undergrad, masters, PhD? Double major and masters is 3 degrees as well. What is this argument even supposed to be? Why does there seem to be a big chunk of people in here who are incapable of thinking critically beyond the exact words people say? It's so hard to have meaningful discourse when you just want to post bad-faith arguments and quick quips.

Cue jaxadam quip about a car


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Adieu said:


> But WHY should the public who DON'T have 3 degrees to capitalize on in the future foot the bill for your choices???
> 
> I mean, surely, at least the THIRD degree that you were struggling to pay for was a personal whim and a questionable choice?!



Under this order, you would just be "contributing" relief for his 1st...his undergrad degree.

EDIT: nvm, post above explains it already.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> I know he's you're buddy, but he decided to imagine a slight against him and was wrong. I'll happily accept an apology for him calling me an asshole for the slight he imagined and let it be water under the bridge, but he doesn't seem keen so sarcasm it is.



I never called you an asshole, but if your imagination brought you to that conclusion than that's fine.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

philkilla said:


> TIL "perk" and "reason" aren't useful words if you're a blatant useless asshole.





philkilla said:


> I never called you an asshole, but if your imagination brought you to that conclusion than that's fine.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> I never called you an asshole, but if your imagination brought you to that conclusion than that's fine.



Even worse, he said you were a buddy of mine…. What an insult to you!


----------



## jaxadam

Cue metaldestroyer quote about an argument he’s not involved in. Srs


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

jaxadam said:


> Cue metaldestroyer quote about an argument he’s not involved in. Srs


Are you though? You weren't involved in my discussion with evade and somehow you were able to quip about it. I don't see why I can't do the same. 

6/10 quip but I'll give you 3 more points if you edit it to involve the car meme


----------



## jaxadam

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> Are you though? You weren't involved in my discussion with evade and somehow you were able to quip about it. I don't see why I can't do the same.
> 
> 6/10 quip but I'll give you 3 more points if you edit it to involve the car meme



3 more points? Shit man that’s worth the challenge. I gotta say at least you’re a good sport and don’t fold under the pressure. Clearly you have a respectable amount of intellect. You know I’m just fucking around with you, and no one should lose any sleep over anything I post. If they do, please feel free to reach out to me and we’ll see what we can do about getting you that car you paid for.


----------



## philkilla

Well if the shoe fits for you too, than so be it.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> Well if the shoe fits for you too, than so be it.



Never blame others for the road you’re on. It’s your own asphalt.


----------



## tedtan

jaxadam said:


> That doesn’t work for you. You’re one of the chosen ones and your reports get scrubbed.


How do I become a chosen one?


----------



## jaxadam

tedtan said:


> How do I become a chosen one?



You have to bake a cake that says "SSO pwnt noob" and take a picture of yourself with it and then post it in the "Chosen One" thread.


----------



## philkilla

I wish there were more perks to go with my blood money college benefits, but alas I'm here with nothing..


----------



## ArtDecade

tedtan said:


> How do I become a chosen one?


Dave Mustaine will come to your house and knight you after you send dick pics to Hetfield's phone at 2am.


----------



## Emperoff

ArtDecade said:


> Dave Mustaine will come to your house and knight you after you send dick pics to Hetfield's phone at 2am.



Didn't turn out that way for Ellefson...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MASS DEFECT said:


> It's very interesting to note the American and European reactions to this topic. It reflects the amount of social services and opportunities available to each and the culture towards free socialized education vs taxpayer priorities.
> 
> Like for Americans, "Why should I pay for your choices?"
> But for Europeans or equally developed nations with Govt Funded Fundamental Tertiary Education: "K. Cool. Congrats guys. Way to go. Welcome to the 21st century."
> 
> And just compare the literacy and competitive metrics between Americans and Europeans of the same age, income, and tertiary education level.



A month ago I gave up entirely on grad school/teacher cert because I couldn't justify more debt. This would be a massive windfall for me, if this goes through I will be enrolling next fall without hesitation.

Becoming a teacher should be difficult, but it shouldn't be expensive. That seems patently obvious to me. I'm just glad I'm getting the opportunity to actually pursue this.

I legitimately don't care if people don't like it. My taxes go to all kinds of shit I don't like, welcome to amerika. It's not whataboutism, it's the entire fucking show. You and me and the rest of the drones pay our taxes and the government does what the fuck they want with it. Usually it's blowing up brown people and domestic spying and bailing out rich assholes but sometimes it's paying for me to go to grad school. I'm always in favor of poor people getting money, whether they're me or not.

I'll never get tired of saying it. If we can print money to build F-35s we can print money to pay my fucking rent.


----------



## /wrists

wheresthefbomb said:


> A month ago I gave up entirely on grad school/teacher cert because I couldn't justify more debt. This would be a massive windfall for me, if this goes through I will be enrolling next fall without hesitation.
> 
> Becoming a teacher should be difficult, but it shouldn't be expensive. That seems patently obvious to me. I'm just glad I'm getting the opportunity to actually pursue this.
> 
> I legitimately don't care if people don't like it. My taxes go to all kinds of shit I don't like, welcome to amerika. It's not whataboutism, it's the entire fucking show. You and me and the rest of the drones pay our taxes and the government does what the fuck they want with it. Usually it's blowing up brown people and domestic spying and bailing out rich assholes but sometimes it's paying for me to go to grad school. I'm always in favor of poor people getting money, whether they're me or not.
> 
> I'll never get tired of saying it. If we can print money to build F-35s we can print money to pay my fucking rent.


Yes, I am against the ideas of taxes being misappropriated altogether. It would appear other people have different opinions on what that misappropriation is. This is the crux of this whole controversy.

Some people think that blowing up brown people, domestic spying, and bailing out rich assholes are not misappropriated tax funds where paying for the common joe to go to grad school is.

Welcome to America, we can have opinions. 

I will never get sick of saying it, I disagree with student loan forgiveness. If we can print money to do that, we can print money to just give out and give people the opportunity of financial freedom, indiscriminate of what you think the money should be going towards.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

evade said:


> If we can print money to do that, we can print money to just give out and give people the opportunity of financial freedom, indiscriminate of what you think the money should be going towards.



For the record I am completely in favor of this and have been for a long time. Print money and give it to the poors. Praise Jesus.

edit: also it may or may not be misappropriation, but what I said is that I don't care and that is true.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> A month ago I gave up entirely on grad school/teacher cert because I couldn't justify more debt. This would be a massive windfall for me, if this goes through I will be enrolling next fall without hesitation.
> 
> Becoming a teacher should be difficult, but it shouldn't be expensive. That seems patently obvious to me. I'm just glad I'm getting the opportunity to actually pursue this.



Good for you, dude. Part of the fun in life is finding your calling, and working to better yourself to fulfill that role. I hate to see young people not follow the dreams that they're passionate about or that they think will make a contribution to society just because of the uncertainty and risk of loans looming over them. Any society that taking or persuading away that choice of becoming an educator, or a doctor, or a lawyer (wait scratch that) because of high education costs is only hurting itself -- we need better people in these roles. And a populace of people that weren't allowed _a fair chance_ to even try to become the type of person they want to be is one that's going to breed a lot of bitterness and seething hatred. 

Reminds me of...
_
What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?_


And as much as there is the bitterness that comes from "You got something I didn't get", frankly that reflects more on the individual and not the policy. And there's always going to be those people. They're not fun at parties. You want society to constantly move in directions that are better for everyone, and ya, it sucks a little for those that exist on some earlier point in the timeline. I'm sure all the people crippled with polio were resentful when that vaccine rolled out, but we're still going to give it to everyone going forward, because that's what progress is all about.


----------



## tedtan

jaxadam said:


> You have to bake a cake that says "SSO pwnt noob" and take a picture of yourself with it and then post it in the "Chosen One" thread.


I’ll see what I can find.




ArtDecade said:


> Dave Mustaine will come to your house and knight you after you send dick pics to Hetfield's phone at 2am.


Close enough?


----------



## /wrists

wheresthefbomb said:


> For the record I am completely in favor of this and have been for a long time. Print money and give it to the poors. Praise Jesus.
> 
> edit: also it may or may not be misappropriation, but what I said is that I don't care and that is true.


Once they do that, I will stop working and become poor because I will then qualify for free money.


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> I wish there were more perks to go with my blood money college benefits, but alas I'm here with nothing..



Fuck I do too man. For starters what I’d like to see:

1) Full gold-plated healthcare for all servicemen and women regardless of length of time served. It should match the quality and speed of what is available to the dorks in Congress and the senate. 

2) Fully covered education up to and including a PHD. It’s there if you want it and no worries if you don’t. It should also be transferable to children if not used. 

However universal public education would make this moot. Until then I would like to see this instituted

3) A Hard-cap on interest rates for first time car purchases. To prevent the meme of “soldier gets first paycheck and buys a charger for 22% interest”. 

We can insert jokes about EV’s here, but these kids are still going to buy something dumb AF, and private businesses should not be able to engage in predatory lending on someone who is 18 and may have come from one of the worst school districts/states in our large and wonderful country. 

4) A bumper sticker that says “PhilKillaRuleZ” because I think it would be neat. But that’s more just a moonshot wish. 



evade said:


> Yes, I am against the ideas of taxes being misappropriated altogether. It would appear other people have different opinions on what that misappropriation is. This is the crux of this whole controversy.
> 
> Some people think that blowing up brown people, domestic spying, and bailing out rich assholes are not misappropriated tax funds where paying for the common joe to go to grad school is.
> 
> Welcome to America, we can have opinions.
> 
> I will never get sick of saying it, I disagree with student loan forgiveness. If we can print money to do that, we can print money to just give out and give people the opportunity of financial freedom, indiscriminate of what you think the money should be going towards.



Yeah, universal basic income is an interesting long term policy goal. Somewhat unique view to have but very cool for discussion.


----------



## philkilla

Mathemagician said:


> Fuck I do too man. For starters what I’d like to see:
> 
> 1) Full gold-plated healthcare for all servicemen and women regardless of length of time served. It should match the quality and speed of what is available to the dorks in Congress and the senate.
> 
> 2) Fully covered education up to and including a PHD. It’s there if you want it and no worries if you don’t. It should also be transferable to children if not used.
> 
> However universal public education would make this moot. Until then I would like to see this instituted
> 
> 3) A Hard-cap on interest rates for first time car purchases. To prevent the meme of “soldier gets first paycheck and buys a charger for 22% interest”.
> 
> We can insert jokes about EV’s here, but these kids are still going to buy something dumb AF, and private businesses should not be able to engage in predatory lending on someone who is 18 and may have come from one of the worst school districts/states in our large and wonderful country.
> 
> 4) A bumper sticker that says “PhilKillaRuleZ” because I think it would be neat. But that’s more just a moonshot wish.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, universal basic income is an interesting long term policy goal. Somewhat unique view to have but very cool for discussion.



A man can dream


----------



## narad

evade said:


> Once they do that, I will stop working and become poor because I will then qualify for free money.



But then you wouldn't have nice things.


----------



## PuckishGuitar

Personally I'm fine with the loan forgiveness. I had help from my parents for college to make up the gap between savings and work, and my wife is still paying off her loans. Unfortunately we made just too much during the pandemic to qualify for her loan forgiveness. Recognizing that we are that economic class that both sides will pull from to pay off their constituents (the 95% thinks we're rich, while we also pay for the 1%'s tax cuts), I say that easing the loans is a good thing in the end since it frees up what may be useful economic activity instead applying it to basically usury charges. There will still be the dumbasses that will blow it, but the opportunity is there now for improvements. Anyway we could be spending that relief money on dumb things instead, like more overseas adventures or RotoTuners on every guitar, so I view it as a win. However I also wish a fix for why such exorbitant loans are necessary would be included at the same time, and that something like applying interest paid to loan principal was done instead of blanket forgiveness.


----------



## narad

GuitarJack said:


> Personally I'm fine with the loan forgiveness. I had help from my parents for college to make up the gap between savings and work, and my wife is still paying off her loans. Unfortunately we made just too much during the pandemic to qualify for her loan forgiveness. Recognizing that we are that economic class that both sides will pull from to pay off their constituents (the 95% thinks we're rich, while we also pay for the 1%'s tax cuts), I say that easing the loans is a good thing in the end since it frees up what may be useful economic activity instead applying it to basically usury charges. There will still be the dumbasses that will blow it, but the opportunity is there now for improvements. Anyway we could be spending that relief money on dumb things instead, like more overseas adventures or RotoTuners on every guitar, so I view it as a win. However I also wish a fix for why such exorbitant loans are necessary would be included at the same time, and that something like applying interest paid to loan principal was done instead of blanket forgiveness.



I think the fact that college is becoming an increasingly poor economic investment, especially at private schools, that it in turn helps put pressure to lower the costs. That and an increasing push away from caring about somewhat useless college credentials. Google was pushing this a while ago, though they still seem to want grad degrees for most positions, but if very desirable jobs switched more towards performance in the interview and less about a credential, suddenly it's really in your advantage to grab some books and spend the next year educating yourself, than to take out 100k+ in loans. To the extent that it is easy to acquire such an education from a distance, which is also increasing due to technology and pandemic necessity.

Really the problem doesn't seem like a current one -- if you went to college in 2000... 2005.... etc, you didn't hear too much about the predatory nature of loans. It's just a necessary cost to unlock more opportunity. From 2015 on, you mostly just heard about people graduating and moving back with their parents because there were no relevant jobs for them to do with their degree. So at that point I think it became more accepted as a failure of an implicit societal promise that college leads to opportunities that generally outweigh the cost. Now the often disingenuous nature of that promise, and the fact that unis, banks, and fed all prey on young people's naivety, is all more in the zeitgeist -- the average american knows about these things, talks about these things, all probably contributes to a lesser need going forward.


----------



## Adieu

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> I can't tell if you're serious. You know a PhD is 3 degrees right? Undergrad, masters, PhD? Double major and masters is 3 degrees as well. What is this argument even supposed to be? Why does there seem to be a big chunk of people in here who are incapable of thinking critically beyond the exact words people say? It's so hard to have meaningful discourse when you just want to post bad-faith arguments and quick quips.
> 
> Cue jaxadam quip about a car



1) it's NOT
2) if you can't afford it, you need to stop and go do money-making things for a while
3) people in debt from getting their PhD really, really shouldn't be Joe Average's problem.


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> A month ago I gave up entirely on grad school/teacher cert because I couldn't justify more debt. This would be a massive windfall for me, if this goes through I will be enrolling next fall without hesitation.
> 
> Becoming a teacher should be difficult, but it shouldn't be expensive. That seems patently obvious to me. I'm just glad I'm getting the opportunity to actually pursue this.
> 
> I legitimately don't care if people don't like it. My taxes go to all kinds of shit I don't like, welcome to amerika. It's not whataboutism, it's the entire fucking show. You and me and the rest of the drones pay our taxes and the government does what the fuck they want with it. Usually it's blowing up brown people and domestic spying and bailing out rich assholes but sometimes it's paying for me to go to grad school. I'm always in favor of poor people getting money, whether they're me or not.
> 
> I'll never get tired of saying it. If we can print money to build F-35s we can print money to pay my fucking rent.



This is why loan forgiveness is wrong.

Instead of learning from mistakes, middling-aged people are instead reinforced to repeat them.

A NO, we most certainly do NOT need to pay your rent or put you through grad school instead of buying F-35's. 

We need MORE F-35's and less eternal college students right now.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> This is why loan forgiveness is wrong.
> 
> Instead of learning from mistakes, middling-aged people are instead reinforced to repeat them.
> 
> A NO, we most certainly do NOT need to pay your rent or put you through grad school instead of buying F-35's.
> 
> We need MORE F-35's and less eternal college students right now.



We probably need grad students more than F-35s. Isn't warfare becoming more about an intelligence and technology edge?


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

Adieu said:


> 1) it's NOT
> 2) if you can't afford it, you need to stop and go do money-making things for a while
> 3) people in debt from getting their PhD really, really shouldn't be Joe Average's problem.


So is your position that people should not get advanced degrees, or that poor people should not be educated as well as wealthy people?


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> 3) people in debt from getting their PhD really, really shouldn't be Joe Average's problem.


Would you disagree that we, as a nation and/or as a human society, benefit from having PhDs?

If so, the underlying issue is that the US only seems to believe people who are already wealthy-enough to pay for them, deserve them...which I think is both a disservice to the people willing to work for them, and hobbles the US (and mankind) as a whole.

[edit, damn...sniped...took too long to edit...]


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> We probably need grad students more than F-35s. Isn't warfare becoming more about an intelligence and technology edge?



My bachelor's, linguistics, is also highly desired by DoD and a variety of other government agencies for doing spy shit. I mean I'm not gonna go _do _that, but the demand is certainly there. 

As for the F-35, well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words:


----------



## Stuck_in_a_dream

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not taking my time to talk at the table mug guy for something pretty much the rest of the world has figured out ages ago.


This ^, and while I don't read minds and I don't know what Max exactly meant, let me give u my perspective as an immigrant to the US who I could claim has achieved the American dream to some extent (I own an Aristides or 2 ).

- First, I owe everything I achieved to the good education I got from my home country (Egypt, mind u). U could argue that I would have got that anywhere given how hard I worked, but I don't agree. If I was raised here under same economic conditions of my family (both my parents were high school grads, barely made it to middle class), I don't think I'd be anywhere near where I am at today, sorry.

- Re loan forgiveness, well, how about an f'ing permanent one! Education almost everywhere else is free, at least to the students who do a good job at it. This is imho a true democratic thing to strive for, in addition to health insurance/services.

- Re loan forgiveness, per Biden's offer, while I was not interested enough to read the fine print or the gory details, I just have a bad feeling about it, given the timing (election yr, etc.). This reminds me a LOT of stuff I saw in my home country, example of what tyrants & dictators typically do to win elections by distracting the population from the real issues.


----------



## Mathemagician

Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> So is your position that people should not get advanced degrees, or that poor people should not be educated as well as wealthy people?



Well that’s the goal of privatized education. It results in classism by design. It reduces the # of educated people available because it’s expensive, and then those few who can afford it monopolize the job pool for “good jobs”. 

It’s great for anyone wealthy as the child of a well off person no longer has to compete with the children of poorer people. 

Ironically it’s the working class people making below $80k/yr that would benefit most from this. But they’re convinced that the tiny amount of taxes they’d pay is not worth it. 

Lending $20-50k+ to an 18 year old is irresponsible AF anyways. Children aren’t supposed to be cash cows for the banking system.


----------



## Jonathan20022

I think one of the biggest realities you have to face is the deconstruction of the ghost that is the low societally contributing mooch that costs you as an individual so much of your own money.

People living in poverty want to work, they want to live productive lives, and to make a better life for their children than they had. Unemployment/Disability/Food Stamps/etc isn't a luxury lifeline, it's not limitless and I'd argue no one really wants to live on them for their entire lives. And nominally what you pay as a taxpayer goes towards is fractionally broken up for all categories other than the military where you can consider a majority of your taxes to support. Your taxes haven't "gone up", in fact they have literally gone down unless you've increased your wealth and income past your current bracket.

The point of "paying" for someone else's anything is always a romantic way to word welfare, like you shoulder the burdens of the dredges of society. If you really want to get granular and calculate how much *you *as a tax payer actually "paid" for someone else's relief or welfare it's not as grandiose as a lot of people make it seem in the first place. If you want to reclaim your happy meal in wealth as opposed to sustaining the society you live in, you might as well be pro-population control 

It's hilarious how much the forgiveness itself is the biggest moving part of the conversation and not the exactly the problem every person reading this will face if you intend to have a family. Your kids will cost you a fortune if they want to go to college, and if you care about that or them in any capacity, the forgiveness should just be the conversation starter.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Would you disagree that we, as a nation and/or as a human society, benefit from having PhDs?
> 
> If so, the underlying issue is that the US only seems to believe people who are already wealthy-enough to pay for them, deserve them...which I think is both a disservice to the people willing to work for them, and hobbles the US (and mankind) as a whole.
> 
> [edit, damn...sniped...took too long to edit...]




Depends on the PhD. More often than not, HELL NO, nobody benefits. Not society. Not even the recipient.

Actuallly, I believe that the highschoolification of higher education has fucked it and society both.

If you want to extend the high school curriculum, go for it, but don't call it university and don't sell it on credit.

This or any other large country does NOT need more than 20% (genuine) university bachelors and more than a couple percent of graduate degrees.

Anything else is bullshit devaluation where people chase higher credentials simply because nobody believe college alone is worth a damn anymore.

Your car dealer does NOT need a marine sciences diploma. Your barista sure as hell doesn't need a master's in philosophy. They are where they are because their schooling turned out to be bullshit.

We're just creating a society of disappointed angry normie workers who were scammed into thinking they were buying a ticket to be special. They NEVER will be, because 99% of people can't. Special is literally the opposite of ordinary. Societies of special people can't exist.

We should strive for DIGNIFIED NORMALCY. Teach skills and trades, not PhDs.

Most PhD programs should be slashed to the bone. Keep graduate degrees somewhat extraordinary and competitive as hell, else it's all for show.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Depends on the PhD. More often than not, HELL NO, nobody benefits. Not society. Not even the recipient.
> 
> Actuallly, I believe that the highschoolification of higher education has fucked it and society both.
> 
> If you want to extend the high school curriculum, go for it, but don't call it university and don't sell it on credit.
> 
> This or any other large country does NOT need more than 20% (genuine) university bachelors and more than a couple percent of graduate degrees.
> 
> Anything else is bullshit devaluation where people chase higher credentials simply because nobody believe college alone is worth a damn anymore.
> 
> Your car dealer does NOT need a marine sciences diploma. Your barista sure as hell doesn't need a master's in philosophy. They are where they are because their schooling turned out to be bullshit.
> 
> We're just creating a society of disappointed angry normie workers who were scammed into thinking they were buying a ticket to be special. They NEVER will be, because 99% of people can't. Special is literally the opposite of ordinary. Societies of special people can't exist.
> 
> We should strive for DIGNIFIED NORMALCY. Teach skills and trades, not PhDs.
> 
> Most PhD programs should be slashed to the bone. Keep graduate degrees somewhat extraordinary and competitive as hell, else it's all for show.



I don't think the car dealer got a marine sciences diploma because he wanted to sell cars. I don't think the barista got a master's in philosophy because they wanted to make coffee. People don't know their destinations at age 17, only their aspirations. So yes, if we could see into the future we could probably get by with a lot less higher education, but until we can do that, this is a hard sell.


----------



## ArtDecade

Love this thread and the utter hypocrisy. Imagine these massive billion dollar Wall Street firms that employ the most elite business minds on the planet failing because they couldn't read the writing on the wall - meanwhile getting bailed out - while complaining that a 17 year old that just wanted to get a job somewhere should have known better than taking in that shitty loan. Yeah. Screw that kid. Oh - and big business... need another bail out?


----------



## /wrists

ArtDecade said:


> Love this thread and the utter hypocrisy. Imagine these massive billion dollar Wall Street firms that employ the most elite business minds on the planet failing because they couldn't read the writing on the wall - meanwhile getting bailed out - while complaining that a 17 year old that just wanted to get a job somewhere should have known better than taking in that shitty loan. Yeah. Screw that kid. Oh - and big business... need another bail out?


What about considering the fact that bailing the Wall St firms aren't right either? What about addressing that hypocrisy of politicians getting their loan forgiven aren't right or in general loan forgiveness isn't right? It's not a competition of who's doing more wrong, most people are JUST as bothered by both.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and add in a lesser wrong still doesn't make it right.

The logic I have towards forgiving a loan is consistent regardless of why. But you're logic isn't consistent. Seems like bailing out the companies are a definite no, but an 18 year old adult, that's okay.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> I don't think the car dealer got a marine sciences diploma because he wanted to sell cars. I don't think the barista got a master's in philosophy because they wanted to make coffee. People don't know their destinations at age 17, only their aspirations. So yes, if we could see into the future we could probably get by with a lot less higher education, but until we can do that, this is a hard sell.


I don't think that some doctors who got their PhD's necessarily wanted to become doctors? Might've been a parental expectation or something.

What someone wants is completely different than what they actually set out to achieve. At the end of the day, sometimes people just need to find a job because they need to live and (pay back their debts). But in this case of what people "want", there could be a lot of people who stay in university for 9 years because they kept not wanting to finish their degree because they didn't know what they wanted. This isn't ALL of the cases, but I honestly think what people want to do is irrelevant of signing the loan in the first place.

I don't want to pay taxes, but only the way I could avoid that is by becoming homeless. But I don't want to be homeless either. 

A blanket 10K loan forgiveness is too forgiving.


----------



## Mathemagician

ArtDecade said:


> Love this thread and the utter hypocrisy. Imagine these massive billion dollar Wall Street firms that employ the most elite business minds on the planet failing because they couldn't read the writing on the wall - meanwhile getting bailed out - while complaining that a 17 year old that just wanted to get a job somewhere should have known better than taking in that shitty loan. Yeah. Screw that kid. Oh - and big business... need another bail out?



When a person or business is already successful they are worshipped. 

But anyone else without contacts is aggressively told to never aspire to anything, and to “be happy with whatever you can get.” 

Works out great if you’re already well-off.


----------



## ArtDecade

evade said:


> What about considering the fact that bailing the Wall St firms aren't right either? What about addressing that hypocrisy of politicians getting their loan forgiven aren't right or in general loan forgiveness isn't right? It's not a competition of who's doing more wrong, most people are JUST as bothered by both.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right, and add in a lesser wrong still doesn't make it right.
> 
> The logic I have towards forgiving a loan is consistent regardless of why. But you're logic isn't consistent. Seems like bailing out the companies are a definite no, but an 18 year old adult, that's okay.


So many nopes above. The government is supposed to provide safety nets. Clearly propping up industries so that the economy doesn't collapse makes sense. Clearly caring for millions of Americans buckling under loan debt also makes sense. The problem is that the government has been taking care of the wealthy and powerful exclusively and now you want to rain on the parade of the middle class when they finally get some assistance. Lol. Good luck thinking the majority of Americans agree with you. They don't.


----------



## spudmunkey

I got a cousin to say "fuck you" to me for the first time, which was amusing considering all of the "snowflake" memes he enjoys sharing so much...

His Facebook post:



My reply:
"They already have for years. It's called the child tax credit, and childless taxpayers subsidize your taxes for your three kids by almost $10K per year. Tell my first cousins once removed 'your welcome' for their cleats. . I guess by being able to chose how they identify, you have trans travel ball expenses."


----------



## narad

evade said:


> I don't think that some doctors who got their PhD's necessarily wanted to become doctors? Might've been a parental expectation or something.
> 
> What someone wants is completely different than what they actually set out to achieve. At the end of the day, sometimes people just need to find a job because they need to live and (pay back their debts). But in this case of what people "want", there could be a lot of people who stay in university for 9 years because they kept not wanting to finish their degree because they didn't know what they wanted. This isn't ALL of the cases, but I honestly think what people want to do is irrelevant of signing the loan in the first place.
> 
> I don't want to pay taxes, but only the way I could avoid that is by becoming homeless. But I don't want to be homeless either.
> 
> A blanket 10K loan forgiveness is too forgiving.



a.) This is not what I mean by "want". I don't care if you want to become a doctor to please your parents, or you want to become a doctor to help people -- you still ultimately want to become a doctor in the sense that that is your life goal. My point is that these people who wanted to be doctors but ultimately became baristas or whatever generally did not set barista as their life goal. And we can't at age 17 identify those who will and will not succeed in that goal.

That said, changing the goal to doctor also misses the point. In original examples, someone could succeed in getting a degree as a marine scientist and still wind up at a car dealership. That implies less that the person didn't fail to achieve the degree, just that there weren't job openings or the openings were more competitive even with a degree. People with MDs typically don't wind up working odd jobs.

b.) I've never met anyone who was ~9 years into grad school because they didn't know what to do. This seems to hinge an argument on a very weird perception of graduate students. Buster Bluth is not a real person. So yes, it isn't ALL cases, but it's probably not even really any cases. This is sort of like the late 3rd trimester abortion argument.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> .
> 
> b.) I've never met anyone who was ~9 years into grad school because they didn't know what to do. This seems to hinge an argument on a very weird perception of graduate students. Buster Bluth is not a real person. So yes, it isn't ALL cases, but it's probably not even really any cases. This is sort of like the late 3rd trimester abortion argument.



...snd the "how come people on welfare have the newest iPhone every 6 months and drive a nicer car than I do", "we could save billions if we drug tested before you get any welfare" and "why should Universal Healthcare be a thing? Just stop making poor life choices" arguements, focusing on the fraction of exceptions, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Grindspine

evade said:


> Whole thing is stupid, if you feel like you're entitled to not pay for higher education just go to the military where they pay for it. Acting as if that's not an option or is that an option not accessible enough just like community college isn't either.


So, you and Jim Banks want class warfare? That is an admission that the rich like the poor to have debt because it is leverage for the poor to have to enlist. Rich kids don't get sent overseas for wars like the poor do.


----------



## Mathemagician

And “the military” doesn’t pay for servicemen’s education. Taxpayers do. And we all agree that’s a good thing. Skipping the middle man and just offering higher education for all isn’t any worse than that.


----------



## Adieu

Mathemagician said:


> Skipping the middle man and just offering higher education for all isn’t any worse than that.



Higher education for all ain't higher education. It literally can't be.

It's just high school, which is ACTUALLY middle school (a reality that many other languages openly admit), all over again.

High education, higher education, then highest education... that's just diploma inflation.

Next step: HIGHESTEST education.

Or, maybe... heist education?


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Higher education for all ain't higher education. It literally can't be.
> 
> It's just high school, which is ACTUALLY middle school (a reality that many other languages openly admit), all over again.
> 
> High education, higher education, then highest education... that's just diploma inflation.
> 
> Next step: HIGHESTEST education.
> 
> Or, maybe... heist education?



This is a nonsense semantics argument. There's no inflation going on. College and high school curriculums don't overlap and high school material is not creeping into college. It's simply more education.


----------



## Mathemagician

Adieu said:


> Higher education for all ain't higher education. It literally can't be.
> 
> It's just high school, which is ACTUALLY middle school (a reality that many other languages openly admit), all over again.
> 
> High education, higher education, then highest education... that's just diploma inflation.
> 
> Next step: HIGHESTEST education.
> 
> Or, maybe... heist education?



I sympathize with your sentiment. Like, I don’t think your feelings are “wrong”. I just think your energy isn’t being directed at the problem. Bro we can’t put it back into Pandora’s box.

It now takes further generalized knowledge to be a productive member of society for most jobs. 

We can argue about whether that is good/bad/whatever until we’re blue in the face. But it is what it is now. So we as a society need to adapt. Even if it’s slowly. 

I don’t understand having a laser-focus on constantly trying to turn back time. That’s not aimed at you specifically. But so so many argue essentially that “it was better how it was before” - for who? 

There is more information out there now to help young adults figure out what jobs to go for, what majors to take, and what careers actually look like and pay than ever before. 
Things change. Markets change. Expectations change. 

In my opinion the goal should be figuring out how to smooth that ride to maximize utility for as many people as we can. 

I don’t mind if my tax dollars go to pay for someone else medical care anymore than if it pays for their music degree. 

Because a handful of them may drop out of music school their senior year and start a sick ass band I listen to for 20+ years. 

But in the interim an entire generation still got fucked by ridiculous interest rates, compounded by costs that spiraled out of control for 15 years and an inability to default on them due to a simple law change.

I get that everyone wants something out of it. But a counter example is the child tax credit. Frankly it should be higher kids are expensive AF. 

I have neither kids nor student loans. But both of those help real people. So I don’t cry about it.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

Adieu said:


> Higher education for all ain't higher education. It literally can't be.
> 
> It's just high school, which is ACTUALLY middle school (a reality that many other languages openly admit), all over again.
> 
> High education, higher education, then highest education... that's just diploma inflation.
> 
> Next step: HIGHESTEST education.
> 
> Or, maybe... heist education?


Highschool is general curricula designed to get the whole population up to speed on approximately the same base level of knowledge. College is inherently specialized - I promise my sister's education degree is very different from my engineering degree. And my EE degree is completely different from a CE degree, bar some base level math and physics concepts.

You're conflating everyone having the same education _level_ with having the same _education_.


----------



## /wrists

narad said:


> This is a nonsense semantics argument. There's no inflation going on. College and high school curriculums don't overlap and high school material is not creeping into college. It's simply more education.


Perhaps you've heard of AP courses?

It is going on. Bachelor degrees are oversaturated and companies (that people shouldn't work for) will want people with a Master's. Eventually the common undergrad degree will be useless.


----------



## narad

evade said:


> Perhaps you've heard of AP courses?
> 
> It is going on. Bachelor degrees are oversaturated and companies (that people shouldn't work for) will want people with a Master's. Eventually the common undergrad degree will be useless.


An AP course is a special accommodation to work college courses into high school, not vice versa. As far as this argument goes, it is actively disproving the point -- it's_ deflation._


----------



## Drew

How is this thread still going on?  

Whether you thing partial loan forgiveness is a good idea or a bad idea is kind of besides the point - it's happening, and how you feel about that is your own business but isn't going to change anything. This is probably the most pointless debate in this whole forum, now that this is going ahead.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> How is this thread still going on?
> 
> Whether you thing partial loan forgiveness is a good idea or a bad idea is kind of besides the point - it's happening, and how you feel about that is your own business but isn't going to change anything. This is probably the most pointless debate in this whole forum, now that this is going ahead.



I don't know man, in OT guitar forums it's customary to debate whether Trump won the election, and that was years ago. We could probably do sour grapes about loan forgiveness for at least another 3 months.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I don't know man, in OT guitar forums it's customary to debate whether Trump won the election, and that was years ago. We could probably do sour grapes about loan forgiveness for at least another 3 months.


Don't encourage them.  

Idunno. I'm really having a hard time making myself give a shit about this debate, and if one or two members think forgiving $10k of student debt for anyone making under $125k was a bad thing, well, they're entitled to their feelings, I guess.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Steve Albini sums it up.


----------



## /wrists

MASS DEFECT said:


> Steve Albini sums it up.
> 
> View attachment 113404


I agree with everything he says because it has nothing to do with loan forgiveness, well, not because it has nothing to do with loan forgiveness, but because it's not contingent on loan forgiveness and those ideas he's expressing make sense. I happen to think a lot of where people are disagreeing isn't because they don't agree with this sentiment, but for one reason if you're against loan forgiveness, it would APPEAR that many of you think we don't agree with this sentiment. 


Really my questions is, 

What is the problem with agreeing with this sentiment, while being against loan forgiveness? Is there a problem?


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I don't know man, in OT guitar forums it's customary to debate whether Trump won the election, and that was years ago. We could probably do sour grapes about loan forgiveness for at least another 3 months.



I don’t know man, there’s people that can’t seem to quit talking about him no matter what.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I don’t know man, there’s people that can’t seem to quit talking about him no matter what.


Yea, he lives rent free. Like an inmate or something.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> This is a nonsense semantics argument. There's no inflation going on. College and high school curriculums don't overlap and high school material is not creeping into college. It's simply more education.



Call it what you will, we're turning university into the new middle school.

Which, considering the time and money it takes, is pretty wacky. And NO, I don't think we should make it free & mandatory-ish.

Instead, I think we should cut it drastically and make it super-competitive.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

evade said:


> I agree with everything he says because it has nothing to do with loan forgiveness, well, not because it has nothing to do with loan forgiveness, but because it's not contingent on loan forgiveness and those ideas he's expressing make sense. I happen to think a lot of where people are disagreeing isn't because they don't agree with this sentiment, but for one reason if you're against loan forgiveness, it would APPEAR that many of you think we don't agree with this sentiment.
> 
> 
> Really my questions is,
> 
> What is the problem with agreeing with this sentiment, while being against loan forgiveness? Is there a problem?



You still don't get it. 

In order for us to make possible what Steve Albini is saying IN THE UNITED STATES, loan forgiveness HAS TO happen. At one point or another. It's a broken system, and it is just one step to further us along. 

You will agree to equitable education for everyone which he advocates for, but of course, you can disagree with how loan forgiveness has come about, and how many of us were left behind. That is natural. 

As natural as the people who got angry that they served 10 years in prison when Marijuana was legalized and sentences were commuted or erased. 

What he said had EVERYTHING to do with loan forgiveness. Because you can't do any of that shit in 2022 America if you don't do loan forgiveness. 

So, to answer your question. There is no problem with you being against loan forgiveness. Because it doesn't matter at this point. 

The world keeps turning.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Don't encourage them.
> 
> Idunno. I'm really having a hard time making myself give a shit about this debate, and if one or two members think forgiving $10k of student debt for anyone making under $125k was a bad thing, well, they're entitled to their feelings, I guess.


This is still the dumbest thread. People talking about AP classes like A Levels aren't over here being further than that for most subjects.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

"We're going to build @wheresthefbomb a Master's Degree, and we're going to make @Adieu pay for it."
-Big Joe


----------



## vilk

narad said:


> Yea, he lives rent free. Like an inmate or something.


Prison isn't always rent free... https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/249-day-prison-stays-leave-inmates-deep-debt-88930478


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> "We're going to build @wheresthefbomb a Master's Degree, and we're going to make @Adieu pay for it."
> -Big Joe



Do you lovely people have dollar store Chinese hats in a bright obnoxious color with an aggro slogan printed in plaintext?

Might I suggest a pukey color and MAKE Y'ALL PAY AGAIN ?


----------



## vilk

Mathemagician said:


> And “the military” doesn’t pay for servicemen’s education. Taxpayers do. And we all agree that’s a good thing. Skipping the middle man and just offering higher education for all isn’t any worse than that.


Saw this meme today and thought of your comment


----------



## littlebadboy

I mean... if we discourage kids to go to college, then America will be lacking badly needed professionals: doctors, nurses, engineers, computer programmers, etc. So, we need to import them here... only to be hated by the other group who dislike immigrants and get randomly slapped or punched.

Isn't that something...


----------



## jaxadam

Anecdotal, but a buddy of mine texted me and said he’s thrilled he got the 10k relief, because his last 9k loan two years ago went to a computer, an engagement ring, a vacation, and part of a payment toward a Strandberg.







I wonder how many other stories are out there like this.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Anecdotal, but a buddy of mine texted me and said he’s thrilled he got the 10k relief, because his last 9k loan two years ago went to a computer, an engagement ring, a vacation, and part of a payment toward a Strandberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many other stories are out there like this.


An insignificant number


----------



## Mathemagician

So he did it in reverse order? Instead of paying for college and paying interest for X years, he pumped money into the economy and then paid interest?

I’m sure that’s not the only person who “benefited”. But the alternative is to keep thousands of others stuck paying off overpriced degrees, to prevent some people from that.

A generation was told in school “any degree will get you ahead in life”. Without reservation, that was every authority source for nearly 20 years. I’m glad that the curtain is finally slowly setting on the free for all costs of education.

Again I have no debt, I worked all through school and was frugal. But I’m not mad other people are getting out from predatory lending made to 18 year old kids.

Banks had no problem fleecing kids, but god forbid someone floats raising tax rates on large companies.

Again the only “argument” isn’t an argument. It’s “it’s not fair”. 

Yeah neither was being promised that loans at 6%+ would be easy to pay off once they graduate with a great career by the people that were supposed to be guiding them.


----------



## jaxadam

I would also like to add that their loans have been deferred since graduation, so they have never made a single payment. So it stands to reason that the only Strandberg worth getting is a deferred forgiven student loan Strandberg!


----------



## littlebadboy

jaxadam said:


> Anecdotal, but a buddy of mine texted me and said he’s thrilled he got the 10k relief, because his last 9k loan two years ago went to a computer, an engagement ring, a vacation, and part of a payment toward a Strandberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many other stories are out there like this.


These are ungrateful abusers of the system. Simply needs regulation and audit. Perhaps system needs to pay the school or whatever expense directly of some sorts. But c'mon, Americans! Are we really going to be like this?


----------



## jaxadam

littlebadboy said:


> But c'mon, Americans! Are we really going to be like this?



Yes, they are. I listened to a finance podcast a while back and it basically stated that the general population is very good at living at the very edge of their financial limitations. Ironically they are also very good and intuitive at adapting to new financial throughputs. I have even seen dumb shit on other websites/forums where people would post their “net worth” in the form available lines of credit. I had a neighbor a long long long time ago that I can’t remember what he did but shit hit the fan and he went and bought one of those icee trucks and just drove around to schools and games and paid the bills.


----------



## TedEH

^ What exactly is the argument being made here? People will make do, so we shouldn't improve anything? Of course people find ways to get by. What's the alternative, just give up and die? Be homeless? Or are you implying that nobody deserves assistance because financial woes are mostly people's own poor choices? I don't have a vague claim of "I heard it on a podcast once" to back it up, but it's been my experience that people do make decent decisions and tend to thrive and contribute to the economy when they're granted the means to do so, which seems to me to be the whole point. (Edit: and to clarify, by "means" I don't mean a one-time windfall - I'm talking about more people being educated and earning more. The big picture isn't the one-shot of money, it's the benefit of having a more educated population.)

If I have to choose between watching a minority of people game the system to pay for guitars, vs. any number of people who are financially crippled whether that education did them some good or not, then I'd rather see some people cheat to pay for guitars. I mean, even that guitar purchase moved some money around was of some benefit to someone. That builder now has more income and can keep their business going, that's still a win.


----------



## jaxadam

TedEH said:


> ^ What exactly is the argument being made here? People will make do, so we shouldn't improve anything? Of course people find ways to get by. What's the alternative, just give up and die? Be homeless? Or are you implying that nobody deserves assistance because financial woes are mostly people's own poor choices? I don't have a vague claim of "I heard it on a podcast once" to back it up, but it's been my experience that people do make decent decisions and tend to thrive and contribute to the economy when they're granted the means to do so, which seems to me to be the whole point. (Edit: and to clarify, by "means" I don't mean a one-time windfall - I'm talking about more people being educated and earning more. The big picture isn't the one-shot of money, it's the benefit of having a more educated population.)
> 
> If I have to choose between watching a minority of people game the system to pay for guitars, vs. any number of people who are financially crippled whether that education did them some good or not, then I'd rather see some people cheat to pay for guitars. I mean, even that guitar purchase moved some money around was of some benefit to someone. That builder now has more income and can keep their business going, that's still a win.



So for one, I wasn't talking to you, but thanks for jumping in with your patented psuedo-agressive and argumentative style. Two, I was talking about Americans in general and how the general population (inclusive but not exclusive to student loan holders) is very good at living at the very edge of their financial limitations (I felt it very necessary to repeat that verbatim since you apparently didn't get it the first time and are somehow applying it to your new version of an argument). I picked up on his comment of "But c'mon, Americans! Are we really going to be like this?" as evidenced by the section I quoted, and took it to a more generalized topic with my vague claim from my rogue podcast. I was just talking, not arguing, so I apologize if that bothered you and sorry I can't meet your argument halfway because I don't have one.


----------



## Mathemagician

Bro some people are shitty. A related but not identical example is something like food stamps/wic/ebt/ etc.

Some people feel that drug tests or some similar test should be required.

But the children of drug addicts have to eat too. And occasionally even addicts use the money for what it’s supposed to go to.

Tax dollars slip through the cracks on some families. But it doesn’t for others. And it’s an effort to feed/clothe those in need.

If we say, for example, were to offer free breakfast lunch and dinner through public schools we could then “ensure” that hungry kids are in fact getting fed with those tax dollars.

But one way or another kids deserve to eat. Most rational adults can get behind that idea. We just need to figure out how best to spend those tax dollars.

Now for this some people like the example above will for sure abuse it. But so so many other people just got real financial relief for their families. Again, I understand the trade off. And it’s a trade off I can accept.


----------



## TedEH

jaxadam said:


> I wasn't talking to you


My bad - I forgot that public forums are strictly for one-to-one conversations.



jaxadam said:


> the general population (inclusive but not exclusive to student loan holders) is very good at living at the very edge of their financial limitations


To what end? What other purpose is served by pointing out that, yes, some people are going to be like that? But also, I think my gut reaction is to disagree with the assertion that people tend to "live on the very edge of their limitations". I think a better assertion might be that the general population tend to be found at the edge of their limitations just by virtue of those limitations not being very high to begin with. Outside of tech circles, couples with no kids, and the odd well-paying trades, I'd be willing to bet that enough people have poor enough means to give off the impression that people tend towards the edge naturally or by virtual of their poor decision making or something, and not because there are few (or no) alternatives.


----------



## littlebadboy

All I can say is that... if we're not going to encourage our American youth to further their education, it will start the decline of the status that America is supposed to be known for.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Anecdotal, but a buddy of mine texted me and said he’s thrilled he got the 10k relief, because his last 9k loan two years ago went to a computer, an engagement ring, a vacation, and part of a payment toward a Strandberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many other stories are out there like this.



Then how did he pay for school?


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Then how did he pay for school?



A combination of financial assistance/loans/bright futures scholarships. He is one of the few fortunate ones that made it to the promised land of a successful career path he was coerced in to before the ink dried on the loan app. But my original point still stands… the only Strandberg worth owning is a free one!


----------



## Andromalia

jaxadam said:


> I would also like to add that their loans have been deferred since graduation, so they have never made a single payment. So it stands to reason that the only Strandberg worth getting is a deferred forgiven student loan Strandberg!


What's your best price on that ?


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> A combination of financial assistance/loans/bright futures scholarships. He is one of the few fortunate ones that made it to the promised land of a successful career path he was coerced in to before the ink dried on the loan app. But my original point still stands… the only Strandberg worth owning is a free one!


Strandbergs aside, it seems weird that the government paid for a bunch of his schooling anyway, and he has some other loan amount, but the forgived portion is attributed directly to funding rings and vacations and strandbergs and not his education.

Right, like I take out $20k in loans, 50% I use for education, 50% I use for guitars. Someone gives me $10k. I either just got a free education and paid for my own guitars, or I paid my own education and got free guitars. Depends on what kind of political point you're trying to make. As someone who wants to reduce the amount that americans are paying for education, ultimately I'm okay with it. Getting free education and buying guitars (or an engagement ring, a vacation, even a strandberg) sounds good to me.


----------



## StevenC

Army misses recruiting goal by 15,000 soldiers


Officials said the Army brought in about 45,000 soldiers during the fiscal year that ended Friday. The goal was 60,000.




www.armytimes.com







@philkilla ?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Military recruitment is entirely premised on continued economic precarity of the cannon fodder class.

But Jim Banks already said that.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> Army misses recruiting goal by 15,000 soldiers
> 
> 
> Officials said the Army brought in about 45,000 soldiers during the fiscal year that ended Friday. The goal was 60,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.armytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @philkilla ?




Loaded topic.

For example: senior leaders by and large don't give a shit about current junior enlisted when it comes to quality of life/barracks/equipment. All of the bad press from that is available via open source, so anyone that considers joining quickly has a change of heart.

I don't even know what to make of what Jim Banks has to say; he was a soft skill supply officer for the navy reserve lol.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I think it would be difficult to prove that loan forgiveness drives lower recruitment, but to me the salient fact here is that Jim Banks is defending poverty as one of the military's "greatest recruitment tools."

it's not news, it's the oldest trick in the book, but to have a public official acknowledge it openly is fairly chilling and I'd say the fact that more people aren't deeply disturbed by that is the most telling aspect of this particular situation.


----------



## philkilla

wheresthefbomb said:


> I think it would be difficult to prove that loan forgiveness drives lower recruitment, but to me the salient fact here is that Jim Banks is defending poverty as one of the military's "greatest recruitment tools."
> 
> it's not news, it's the oldest trick in the book, but to have a public official acknowledge it openly is fairly chilling and I'd say the fact that more people aren't deeply disturbed by that is the most telling aspect of this particular situation.



It's a horrendously douchey thing for him to say.

Again, he was a supply clerk for the navy reserve. That's about as far away as you can be from combat action without actually joining the military


----------



## KnightBrolaire

wheresthefbomb said:


> I think it would be difficult to prove that loan forgiveness drives lower recruitment, but to me the salient fact here is that Jim Banks is defending poverty as one of the military's "greatest recruitment tools."
> 
> it's not news, it's the oldest trick in the book, but to have a public official acknowledge it openly is fairly chilling and I'd say the fact that more people aren't deeply disturbed by that is the most telling aspect of this particular situation.


It's extremely effective ime. They heavily target rural/lower income areas and impressionable 18 year olds. If you ever drive through places like Nebraska, The Dakotas or any Native American reservation, you'll see a disproportionate amount of advertising for the military. 
Recruiters will tell them they'll get 35-40k a year and a 10-60k bonus (which they now tax lmao) to do shit like be a medic, infantry, parachute rigger, etc. The amount of people in the army that basically joined because it was the best option is disproportionately high ime. 

National guard in most states is the best option though ime. You often get full tuition and books covered with minimal time in (e.g Texas and Wisconsin NG both do this). Active duty you get 100% tuition after deployments (even to non-combat zones). I knew a few nurses that paid for their masters in full with their GI Bill after going to Kuwait. The big plus with GI Bill is that you can pass it on to your kids if you don't use it.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

KnightBrolaire said:


> It's extremely effective ime. They heavily target rural/lower income areas and impressionable 18 year olds. If you ever drive through places like Nebraska, The Dakotas or any Native American reservation, you'll see a disproportionate amount of advertising for the military.
> Recruiters will tell them they'll get 35-40k a year and a 10-60k bonus (which they now tax lmao) to do shit like be a medic, infantry, parachute rigger, etc. The amount of people in the army that basically joined because it was the best option is disproportionately high ime.
> 
> National guard in most states is the best option though ime. You often get full tuition and books covered with minimal time in (e.g Texas and Wisconsin NG both do this). Active duty you get 100% tuition after deployments (even to non-combat zones). I knew a few nurses that paid for their masters in full with their GI Bill after going to Kuwait. The big plus with GI Bill is that you can pass it on to your kids if you don't use it.



It's really heavy in certain schools as well, the HS I used to work at would have army doods tabling with a predator drone model at lunchtime. I thought it was extremely inappropriate but that was def not the majority sentiment.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

wheresthefbomb said:


> It's really heavy in certain schools as well, the HS I used to work at would have army doods tabling with a predator drone model at lunchtime. I thought it was extremely inappropriate but that was def not the majority sentiment.


I went from a very poor high school, to a very rural one, and the one constant was the military recruiters were hanging around the cafeteria all the time. Some of the recruiters would even add kids on xbox live and play COD with them just to further sell them on the military.


----------



## Drew

KnightBrolaire said:


> It's extremely effective ime. They heavily target rural/lower income areas and impressionable 18 year olds. If you ever drive through places like Nebraska, The Dakotas or any Native American reservation, you'll see a disproportionate amount of advertising for the military.
> Recruiters will tell them they'll get 35-40k a year and a 10-60k bonus (which they now tax lmao) to do shit like be a medic, infantry, parachute rigger, etc. The amount of people in the army that basically joined because it was the best option is disproportionately high ime.
> 
> National guard in most states is the best option though ime. You often get full tuition and books covered with minimal time in (e.g Texas and Wisconsin NG both do this). Active duty you get 100% tuition after deployments (even to non-combat zones). I knew a few nurses that paid for their masters in full with their GI Bill after going to Kuwait. The big plus with GI Bill is that you can pass it on to your kids if you don't use it.


Don't want to brag about my own privilege here or anything, but it came as a VERY big surprise as a young 20-something when I learned that the military goes door-to-door in poorer neighborhoods. 

Anyway, if I had to speculate, it's not $10k in loan forgiveness, it's a booming labor market and a rapid increase in wages even for fairly entry level positions, during a time heightened concern for a recession. Maybe a bit of added cncern that thanks to Russia we could actually conceivably see ourselves mobilizing in the next couple years. It's an unusual combo that I don't think will last, but right now the alternatives to joining the military if you want to provide for your family are pretty compelling.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Drew said:


> Don't want to brag about my own privilege here or anything, but it came as a VERY big surprise as a young 20-something when I learned that the military goes door-to-door in poorer neighborhoods.
> 
> Anyway, if I had to speculate, it's not $10k in loan forgiveness, it's a booming labor market and a rapid increase in wages even for fairly entry level positions, during a time heightened concern for a recession. Maybe a bit of added cncern that thanks to Russia we could actually conceivably see ourselves mobilizing in the next couple years. It's an unusual combo that I don't think will last, but right now the alternatives to joining the military if you want to provide for your family are pretty compelling.


I can't remember where I saw the data from, but basically the gist was that anytime the economy sucked, people were more willing to join the military, and when the economy was good, they were less likely to join. My mom and dad saw it firsthand when they were in the army back in the 80s/90s, and I saw it when I was in too.


----------



## Drew

KnightBrolaire said:


> I can't remember where I saw the data from, but basically the gist was that anytime the economy sucked, people were more willing to join the military, and when the economy was good, they were less likely to join. My mom and dad saw it firsthand when they were in the army back in the 80s/90s, and I saw it when I was in too.


It makes a perverse sort of sense - stable income without a college degree, good career track if you want it, and if you don't, free tuition. 

The difference here is that labor demand was so high coming into what I'm fairly sure is already a recession, that the economy could roll over but - as of yet - labor demand hasn't. A couple point GDP contraction is enough to only bring us from, say, 10% understaffed, to maybe 7%. I do think that there's going to be an inflection point where labor demand is going to snap and fall fast, but we're not there yet.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The beta launch of the application is up. It sounds like it will be available on an intermittent basis until the full launch, but I was able to get my app through this morning. 



https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief/application


----------



## narad

Abdelziz said:


> Paying for a student loan


srsly dude?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> srsly dude?



That was spam dude.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> That was spam dude.



I know but it seemed like human spam 

Related, we seem to be getting a ton of shitheads on the gear-specific facebook groups. They join like the Mesa Boogie group and then post pics of Mesa merch and say like, "Who needs this shirt?!" or the one I hate the most, "I bought this shirt and my friends made fun of me, but I thought it was cool". Ugh. Mods are not fast about it either.


----------



## /wrists

jaxadam said:


> Anecdotal, but a buddy of mine texted me and said he’s thrilled he got the 10k relief, because his last 9k loan two years ago went to a computer, an engagement ring, a vacation, and part of a payment toward a Strandberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many other stories are out there like this.


I know at least two others except it was for a car lol.


----------



## vilk




----------



## wheresthefbomb

@bostjan and anyone else who may be interested, I received the following email from the US Secretary of Education:

This email provides you with an update on the one-time Student Loan Debt Relief plan that President Biden and I announced on August 24th.

We reviewed your application and determined that you are eligible for loan relief under the Plan. We have sent this approval on to your loan servicer. You do not need to take any further action.

Unfortunately, a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the program, which have blocked our ability to discharge your debt at present. We believe strongly that the lawsuits are meritless, and the Department of Justice has appealed on our behalf. Your application is complete and approved, and we will discharge your approved debt if and when we prevail in court. We will update you when there are new developments.

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to helping borrowers as they recover from the pandemic.


----------



## CanserDYI

wheresthefbomb said:


> @bostjan and anyone else who may be interested, I received the following email from the US Secretary of Education:
> 
> This email provides you with an update on the one-time Student Loan Debt Relief plan that President Biden and I announced on August 24th.
> 
> We reviewed your application and determined that you are eligible for loan relief under the Plan. We have sent this approval on to your loan servicer. You do not need to take any further action.
> 
> Unfortunately, a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the program, which have blocked our ability to discharge your debt at present. We believe strongly that the lawsuits are meritless, and the Department of Justice has appealed on our behalf. Your application is complete and approved, and we will discharge your approved debt if and when we prevail in court. We will update you when there are new developments.
> 
> The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to helping borrowers as they recover from the pandemic.


My wife and I got the same, here's to hoping man!


----------



## Glades

Does the federal government send payment to you loan provider? or do they cut out a check to the borrower?


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> Does the federal government send payment to you loan provider? or do they cut out a check to the borrower?


From what I've gathered, they "Pay" the loan provider. I'm not sure if they cut some sort of deal behind the curtains or something, but the language in the correspondence sounded like the funds needed to be released to the creditor but they are waiting on that lawsuit to play through, which in the email they say they believe to be meritless.


----------



## TakeNoPrisoners

I don’t know how anyone can consider student loan forgiveness just. It’s punishing people who have been financially responsible and contributing to society and rewarding those who haven’t. I can see those people who benefit from it would wish to support it since they’ll benefit from it but I can’t see how anyone can see it as fair. On top of that it’s a complete abuse of power.

If they wanted to provide a bunch of money for future tuition I could support that but it is unjust to do it retroactively what about all the people who missed out on getting an education or paid back loans they now didn’t need to or signed up for the military etc because they couldn’t afford to do college otherwise?

It also doesn’t make any economic sense.. having debt if anything would encourage people to seek employment.. if you want to help them invest money in creating more jobs. Not pump more money into economy via loan forgiveness further driving up inflation.

Biden is a fucking moron plain and simple. He makes trump look like a genius and Trump is an idiot.


----------



## jaxadam

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> I don’t know how anyone can consider student loan forgiveness just. It’s punishing people who have been financially responsible and contributing to society and rewarding those who haven’t. I can see those people who benefit from it would wish to support it since they’ll benefit from it but I can’t see how anyone can see it as fair. On top of that it’s a complete abuse of power.
> 
> If they wanted to provide a bunch of money for future tuition I could support that but it is unjust to do it retroactively what about all the people who missed out on getting an education or paid back loans they now didn’t need to or signed up for the military etc because they couldn’t afford to do college otherwise?
> 
> It also doesn’t make any economic sense.. having debt if anything would encourage people to seek employment.. if you want to help them invest money in creating more jobs. Not pump more money into economy via loan forgiveness further driving up inflation.
> 
> Biden is a fucking moron plain and simple. He makes trump look like a genius and Trump is an idiot.



Hey man I'm just hoping in about 20 years I get that mortgage forgiveness! I mean, I was sold on the dream of owning a home, and I got one (they forced me to) and it did not give me the things that homeownership promised. They DEFINITELY didn't warn me about the kids part.


----------



## nightflameauto

@jaxadam
Home ownership feels like a scam. You "get value" by constantly paying for maintenance, constantly paying taxes on the property and building, constantly paying for this little add-on or that little add-on, and you get the benefit of having at least half, probably more, of your free time sucked up keeping the piece of shit from collapsing on itself and trying to make the yard look like anything other than a bramble patch.

Grumble grumble.


----------



## TedEH

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> having debt if anything would encourage people to seek employment


I only skim this thread but "debt is good because it encourages you to work" is a shitty take.



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> creating more jobs


We don't need _more_ jobs, we need _better_ jobs. I say this as someone who is well payed for what I do: Everyone should have it as good as me. The people who scrub dishes and toilets and flip burgers etc. all work harder and put in longer hours than I do and easily deserve as much opportunity as me - but they can't if they're strapped down with debt. Where's the justice in that?



jaxadam said:


> Hey man I'm just hoping in about 20 years I get that mortgage forgiveness!


You kid - but that sounds fantastic to me. Can you imagine how great a system it would be if every person was guaranteed a minimum viable lifestyle (food + a home)?

But of course the roadblocks to the kinds of systems that would allow _true_ freedom like that are those that _have_ not wanting to share with _others_. Because "that would be punishing those who deserve it".


----------



## jaxadam

nightflameauto said:


> @jaxadam
> Home ownership feels like a scam. You "get value" by constantly paying for maintenance, constantly paying taxes on the property and building, constantly paying for this little add-on or that little add-on, and you get the benefit of having at least half, probably more, of your free time sucked up keeping the piece of shit from collapsing on itself and trying to make the yard look like anything other than a bramble patch.
> 
> Grumble grumble.



When people say “I paid off my home, I own it free and clear!” I say “Skip a few tax payments and then see who owns it!”


----------



## TakeNoPrisoners

My


TedEH said:


> I only skim this thread but "debt is good because it encourages you to work" is a shitty take.
> 
> 
> We don't need _more_ jobs, we need _better_ jobs. I say this as someone who is well payed for what I do: Everyone should have it as good as me. The people who scrub dishes and toilets and flip burgers etc. all work harder and put in longer hours than I do and easily deserve as much opportunity as me - but they can't if they're strapped down with debt. Where's the justice in that?
> 
> 
> You kid - but that sounds fantastic to me. Can you imagine how great a system it would be if every person was guaranteed a minimum viable lifestyle (food + a home)?
> 
> But of course the roadblocks to the kinds of systems that would allow _true_ freedom like that are those that _have_ not wanting to share with _others_. Because "that would be punishing those who deserve it".


main point is that it’s unfair to those who chose not to go to college or joined military or already paid loans because they didn’t know they would be forgiven… the other points I made were just piling on additional reasons but really all I’m arguing is that it’s unfair because people made choices without knowing loans would be forgiven and that is unfair. As I said I’m cool with funding future tuition. My issue is it’s unfair to those who paid loans or didn’t take loans that now could have or joined military to pay for education.


----------



## nightflameauto

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> My
> 
> main point is that it’s unfair to those who chose not to go to college or joined military or already paid loans because they didn’t know they would be forgiven… the other points I made were just piling on additional reasons but really all I’m arguing is that it’s unfair because people made choices without knowing loans would be forgiven and that is unfair.


I find it odd how many people look to the past when making decisions about fairness, yet have a horrible time looking at where we are today, where we'd like to be tomorrow, and reconciling that with "unfair because $past_decisions."

Progress doesn't happen by making sure everybody that already has what they need is taken care of first. Until we get, as a collective, that lifting up our lowest helps us all, we're stuck in this quagmire of "but, but, but, MOM! I WANTED THAT!"


----------



## TedEH

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> unfair because people made choices without knowing



Even if I agreed, that argument is meaningless unless you can provide a _less unfair alternative_. Life is inherently unfair. At any given moment you have to make whatever decisions you're going to make without the knowledge of what will or won't come of those choices. I'll grant you that there's an element of unfairness to that.

But hey, having your lifestyle screwed because you can't get out of debt because someone else is sad that it doesn't fit their theoretical model of "justice", that's totally fair, right?


----------



## TakeNoPrisoners

nightflameauto said:


> I find it odd how many people look to the past when making decisions about fairness, yet have a horrible time looking at where we are today, where we'd like to be tomorrow, and reconciling that with "unfair because $past_decisions."
> 
> Progress doesn't happen by making sure everybody that already has what they need is taken care of first. Until we get, as a collective, that lifting up our lowest helps us all, we're stuck in this quagmire of "but, but, but, MOM! I WANTED THAT!"


But the issue isnt that you’re helping the poor it’s that you are being unfair to people who were in an equally poor position.

Also it does more to hurt the economy than help than help the economy.

It’s unnecessarily unjust. There’s plenty you can do to help the poor and improve the economy that doesn’t require you to treat people unequally who were in similar financial situation. The issue is people who are equally poor who were more financially responsible and cautious and did more to contribute to society are being punished by this and while those who were less responsible are rewarded. Do you think all the people joined the military during that period would have done so had they been offer free tuition? What about the people who chose not to go to school or went to cheaper school or shorter program or pursued different career because of costs? Is that fair to them? What about the people who worked their ass off to repay their loans? The issue has nothing to do with helping the poor. We’re talking people in the same economic bracket and circumstance being treated unfairly.

No one made anyone take out student loans. People should be responsible for the debt they take on. Yes help the poor. But don’t do it by target just the poor that are irresponsible thereby punishing the who we’re responsible .. do it fairly.


----------



## narad

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> But the issue isnt that you’re helping the poor it’s that you are being unfair to people who were in an equally poor position.
> 
> Also it does more to hurt the economy than help than help the economy.
> 
> It’s unnecessarily unjust. There’s plenty you can do to help the poor and improve the economy that doesn’t require you to treat people unequally who were in similar financial situation. The issue is people who are equally poor who were more financially responsible and cautious and did more to contribute to society are being punished by this and while those who were less responsible are rewarded. Do you think all the people joined the military during that period would have done so had they been offer free tuition? What he people that didn’t go to school? What who repaid their loans? The issue has nothing to do with helping the poor. We’re talking people in same economic bracket and circumstance being treated unfairly.



I'm one of these people being treated "unfairly". Of course I would also have liked my loans forgiven. Of course I can also see that what is better for society as a whole will also benefit me, because I live in that society. And that's in the case that you value yourself more than countless future generations, which is already a pretty flouncy position if you want to talk about what is morally right.

I also want to reiterate that the amount being forgiven is not a crazy amount. It's not like "I didn't become a dentist because I was worried about $200k in student loans -- now these guys get it taken care of for free!". It's significant, but it's also about the same amount as one year's worth of interest on my loans at peak, which was just a nice chunk of profit for those lenders. It's then worth also emphasizing that the parts of this bill that aren't outright forgiveness could have prevented the entire need for forgiveness if government had considered passing something similar in the 90s when education costs started skyrocketing -- if only to match the systems in place in most of Europe.

You can't have nice things if you want to argue that it would be unfair to everyone who grew up with your current shitty things.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> It’s punishing people who have been financially responsible and contributing to society and rewarding those who haven’t.



I pay taxes and perform a socially necessary job. I've contributed just as much as the next rube.


----------



## TedEH

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> It’s unnecessarily unjust.


Again, if it's unnecessarily unjust - what's the solution that fits your model of justice?



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> Also it does more to hurt the economy than help than help the economy.


[Citation needed]



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> in similar financial situation


If the example is a person who opted not to go to school, or did go to school but managed to pay it off, then the fact that you don't have education debt means that you, by definition, are not in the same financial situation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> did more to contribute to society


That's a load of crap. In what measurable way can you claim that the nebulous group of "people who are unfairly treated by others getting financial assistance" contribute more to society? That's a non-argument. It's ad hominem. It's an admittance that you don't have a real point here.



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> Do you think all the people joined the military during that period would have done so had they been offer free tuition?


I'm not American, but I thought that _was_ an actual incentive at some point.
But also yes, I think that a person who would consider joining the military under any circumstances are likely to have considered it under other circumstances.



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> What about the people who chose not to go to school or went to cheaper school or shorter program or pursued different career because of costs?


They probably aren't in debt. I'm a person who fits this category. Non only do I not feel slighted by it, but it turned out fantastically for me. Even the people around me benefit, because my success grants them a safety net - same as what other educated people with good jobs could do if we give them a boost. Everyone wins!



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> What about the people who worked their ass off to repay their loans?


Again, if they had the means to repay their loans, they were not in the same financial position as someone who cannot. They either got assistance elsewhere, or the education _did its job_, and provided for them - which is exactly what was promised.



TakeNoPrisoners said:


> We’re talking people in the same economic bracket and circumstance being treated unfairly.


No we're not talking about people in the same economic circumstances. That is a HUGE detail you're getting very wrong.


----------



## Mathemagician

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> My
> 
> main point is that it’s unfair to those who chose not to go to college or joined military or already paid loans because they didn’t know they would be forgiven… the other points I made were just piling on additional reasons but really all I’m arguing is that it’s unfair because people made choices without knowing loans would be forgiven and that is unfair. As I said I’m cool with funding future tuition. My issue is it’s unfair to those who paid loans or didn’t take loans that now could have or joined military to pay for education.



This is the same logic that would dictate “no research into diseases should be done because other people suffered from those diseases already”. 

It’s been pointed out before, but the primary argument against student loan forgiveness boils down to “jealousy”. That’s it. That’s the whole argument. 

Meanwhile If a business sells stuff, having some 1 in 7 Americans have more free cash to spend will actually boost economic activity and reward those who have businesses. Because that loan money is no longer disappearing into a black hole but is instead getting spent locally.


----------



## nightflameauto

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> But the issue isnt that you’re helping the poor it’s that you are being unfair to people who were in an equally poor position.
> 
> Also it does more to hurt the economy than help than help the economy.
> 
> It’s unnecessarily unjust. There’s plenty you can do to help the poor and improve the economy that doesn’t require you to treat people unequally who were in similar financial situation. The issue is people who are equally poor who were more financially responsible and cautious and did more to contribute to society are being punished by this and while those who were less responsible are rewarded. Do you think all the people joined the military during that period would have done so had they been offer free tuition? What about the people who chose not to go to school or went to cheaper school or shorter program or pursued different career because of costs? Is that fair to them? What about the people who worked their ass off to repay their loans? The issue has nothing to do with helping the poor. We’re talking people in the same economic bracket and circumstance being treated unfairly.
> 
> No one made anyone take out student loans. People should be responsible for the debt they take on. Yes help the poor. But don’t do it by target just the poor that are irresponsible thereby punishing the who we’re responsible .. do it fairly.


You know what this sounds like to those of us with a bit of understanding of how the world works and a little bit of compassion for our fellow man/woman/human? It sounds like someone that came from an abusive house pissed off that kids today aren't all being beaten twice per day.

You want a better world? Or would you rather wallow in the miseries that you had to suffer forever, just because you suffered them? That's the root of the issue here.


----------



## MFB

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> My main point is that it’s unfair to those who chose not to go to college or joined military or already paid loans because they didn’t know they would be forgiven… the other points I made were just piling on additional reasons but really all I’m arguing is that it’s unfair because people made choices without knowing loans would be forgiven and that is unfair. As I said I’m cool with funding future tuition. My issue is it’s unfair to those who paid loans or didn’t take loans that now could have or joined military to pay for education.



It's almost like the system is flawed in that we have people literally willing to risk their own life or take someone else's just for a High School 2.0 degree that we've considered more valuable because it cost a lot to get it, not necessarily that you earned it by a bunch of hard work? Even if you get nothing but D+ grades for 4 years to get that degree, there's are X amount of others ahead of you in line that actually got it because they KNEW the material and could prove it very easily. But once you get into the real world, all that goes away and it's just about whether or not you have it.

edit: apparently I never hit post on this draft yesterday


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I wish social media was a thing two thousand years ago.

"Jesus died for our sins, so we no longer have to provide animal sacrifices to God."
"WHAT!? That's _bullshit_. What about all the lambs I've sacrificed? I was responsible and always made sure to present my sacrifices unto the Lord in a timely manner, and now this? Jesus Christ."


----------



## LordCashew

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I wish social media was a thing two thousand years ago.
> 
> "Jesus died for our sins, so we no longer have to provide animal sacrifices to God."
> "WHAT!? That's _bullshit_. What about all the lambs I've sacrificed? I was responsible and always made sure to present my sacrifices unto the Lord in a timely manner, and now this? Jesus Christ."


You could take that even further back to the command for debts to be forgiven in the Mosaic law. That was only every 49 years I think, but the years around it would probably be very interesting.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I wish social media was a thing two thousand years ago.
> 
> "Jesus died for our sins, so we no longer have to provide animal sacrifices to God."
> "WHAT!? That's _bullshit_. What about all the lambs I've sacrificed? I was responsible and always made sure to present my sacrifices unto the Lord in a timely manner, and now this? Jesus Christ."



Excellent use of JC as an expletive, 11/10 post thank you for my morning lols


----------



## Drew

TakeNoPrisoners said:


> t’s unnecessarily unjust. There’s plenty you can do to help the poor and improve the economy that doesn’t require you to treat people unequally who were in similar financial situation. The issue is people who are equally poor who were more financially responsible and cautious and did more to contribute to society are being punished by this and while those who were less responsible are rewarded. Do you think all the people joined the military during that period would have done so had they been offer free tuition? What about the people who chose not to go to school or went to cheaper school or shorter program or pursued different career because of costs? Is that fair to them? What about the people who worked their ass off to repay their loans? The issue has nothing to do with helping the poor. We’re talking people in the same economic bracket and circumstance being treated unfairly.


TBH, I've never understood this argument. 

My tax dollars already go to a ton of things that I don't get any direct benefit from, even if we limit ourselves to education. Student loan interest is tax deductible - if I didn't take out student loans, by letting people who did claim that on their taxes, aren't we already subsidizing them and "punishing" me for not getting a degree I had to borrow to afford? We give free college education to the military. Doesn't that unfairly benefit the people who served in the military but either never saw active duty or did but returned unharmed, over those who died in service and never got to use their free tuition? Why should an Army desk jockey get to go to college for free, when I have to pay, and my friend's brother who died in Afghanistan never got the chance to use that benefit? 

Or, more broadly, the American Recovery and Reivestment act provided something like $800B in stimulus spending, mostly for infrastructure. Only a small share of that was used to improve roads and bridges here in Massachusetts, and I won't even eveer drive over all of them. Should I be outraged because this bill helped other people? The Federal government sent $15B to Texas and Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, and I didn't see a dime of that. Should I be upset? 

Or, we can just take a step back and say that what's unfair isn't that we're helping some people and not others; what's unfair is that some people _need_ help, and to not help them would be unjust. Perfect equality in treatment isn't possible, so let's all just agree to do the best we can and not worry if someone's getting it better than we are. Plenty of others are getting it worse, and I don't see anyone lining up to take on _more_ debt just because $10k is only a drop in the bucket to someone with $250,000 in debt from an advanced degree.


----------



## Wiltonauer

I paid my way through medical school by posing for a lingerie catalog. No, wait. Shit. That was the Katherine Heigl character on _Grey’s Anatomy._


----------



## jaxadam

Wiltonauer said:


> I paid my way through medical school by posing for a lingerie catalog. No, wait. Shit. That was the Katherine Heigl character on _Grey’s Anatomy._



Hey, the former president of Cinnabon started off at the Hooters right down the road!









Kat Cole - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## coreysMonster

You know what's not just? Trapping 19 year olds, who have been told their entire lives that they HAVE to go to the best college they possibly can, into a form debt they can't bankrupt their way out of unlike literally every single other form of debt we have in this country, at a level that eclipses mortgage debt held by the majority of people a decade or two prior, purely due to government-supported runaway greed of predatory universities that nobody has done anything about because our country doesn't make laws that benefit the younger generations, ever._ That _isn't just.
I went to uni in Europe so I don't have student loans to forgive (thanks to *socialism*), but they can gladly spend my taxes on giving debt relief to _real _people instead of corporations and the wealthy, for once. People complaining about this need a reality check.


----------



## Wiltonauer

Teachers, guidance counselors, parents, and recruiters blow way too much smoke about how everyone needs to follow their dreams. Everyone _must _be a doctor, a Nobel-prize winning scientist, President, astronaut, CEO of a Fortune 500 company, etc. Everyone must have a career that nobody can look down on. Everyone must earn a salary that is above average. Everyone must be the boss, because having someone tell you what to do is shameful and runs counter to the American spirit. Get the right education. Land the right job. Be the boss. Make all the money. Fuck all those other losers; they can’t have any, because having something means nothing unless somebody else _doesn’t_ have it.


----------



## coreysMonster

Wiltonauer said:


> Teachers, guidance counselors, parents, and recruiters blow way too much smoke about how everyone needs to follow their dreams.


It's interesting that you put the blame on that on educators and parents, when it's the politicians, the president, media pundits, industry leaders and CEOs that say the same bullshit. I would argue it's the people on top that started that rhetoric because it benefits the ruling class if everybody thinks they can make it big if they just work a little harder.


----------



## Wiltonauer

coreysMonster said:


> It's interesting that you put the blame on that on educators and parents, when it's the politicians, the president, media pundits, industry leaders and CEOs that say the same bullshit. I would argue it's the people on top that started that rhetoric because it benefits the ruling class if everybody thinks they can make it big if they just work a little harder.


Agreed. I guess I named the people I named because they’re the ones I heard it from when I was young. And don’t forget I also blamed recruiters. I probably heard it from the people running the loan rackets, too. “Don’t rule anything out. This is your dream, and no dream is too big. No amount of debt is too much for someone else to carry, if it will line our pockets.” Even as a histrionic, hormone-addled teenager with a big ego, I thought some of the things they were telling us were overly optimistic to the point of being irresponsible. But then, who wants to be the one who told a young person their dream was unrealistic?


----------



## TedEH

Maybe a sort of "devil's advocate" type question but - what exactly _is_ the "correct" route to success if education isn't it? I ask because IMO we're implying that education, on the whole, is a scam just in it's own right - as opposed to saying that the problem is the _access to_ and _potential repercussions_ of that system of access to education. Education is, generally speaking, a good thing - and it's been my experience that if you have the means to access it without destroying yourself financially, your outcomes are still likely to be better than if you hadn't done it. No, you absolutely don't have to "aim for the stars", and of course the attitude of there being no middle ground between failure and world-class is something we shouldn't be sold on, but the education system, job markets, etc. can be criticized without hyperbolically throwing the idea of education under the bus.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Maybe a sort of "devil's advocate" type question but - what exactly _is_ the "correct" route to success if education isn't it? I ask because IMO we're implying that education, on the whole, is a scam just in it's own right - as opposed to saying that the problem is the _access to_ and _potential repercussions_ of that system of access to education. Education is, generally speaking, a good thing - and it's been my experience that if you have the means to access it without destroying yourself financially, your outcomes are still likely to be better than if you hadn't done it. No, you absolutely don't have to "aim for the stars", and of course the attitude of there being no middle ground between failure and world-class is something we shouldn't be sold on, but the education system, job markets, etc. can be criticized without hyperbolically throwing the idea of education under the bus.



I don't think anyone [lucid] is saying that education, or even just seeking such, is a bad thing. 

It's more or less the system we have here in the US, and attitudes towards high educations role in society.


----------



## narad

If I'm to borrow some understanding of the German education system from my friend who constantly praises it to me, in Germany a placement test (Arbitur) effectively tracks people into higher education or more vocational training.

In the US, I guess the closest thing is the SAT, but that only effectively tracks people into good university or bad university. Bad grades and bad standardized test scores should be some reality check that going further up the college education path isn't likely the path to success for that person, and the cost of education vs. the opportunity cost of not working for 4+ years pretty much guarantees it, but there's no societal mechanism in place to confront young people with that reality.

Plus the idea of honest work in the US is all messed up. It's somehow better to go to college and fail (or succeed in getting a degree with no job opportunities) than it is to take on a vocational job like electrician/carpentry/plumbing. I know it's not the average, but the plumbers I know are killling it... would be hard to out-earn them with an in-demand grad degree. But if you told me in high school that my future was to be a plumber, it'd be terribly depressing. Maybe if you told me I'd be a plumber with a ferrari it'd be more palatable. And many of the people I met from undergrad basically started their career search negative 1 ferrari in student debt, with lower paying options than the vocational guys.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> If I'm to borrow some understanding of the German education system from my friend who constantly praises it to me, in Germany a placement test (Arbitur) effectively tracks people into higher education or more vocational training.
> 
> In the US, I guess the closest thing is the SAT, but that only effectively tracks people into good university or bad university. Bad grades and bad standardized test scores should be some reality check that going further up the college education path isn't likely the path to success for that person, and the cost of education vs. the opportunity cost of not working for 4+ years pretty much guarantees it, but there's no societal mechanism in place to confront young people with that reality.



That's what the various "shop" classes were for. Steering kids that were academic "under performers" but could work with their hands into the trades.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's what the various "shop" classes were for. Steering kids that were academic "under performers" but could work with their hands into the trades.


Yea, not sure what it was like at other schools but really all shop taught me was to be scared of band saws. A lot of the carpenters I met were the sons or nephews of carpenters, etc., and they were roofing in summers for 20/hr. So I would expect some sort of free-ish education for people straight out of high school to learn the the shop skills at a payable level. Like straight out of HS, absolutely no one would be hiring me to do anything with any of the shop tools we had in class, and rightly so.


----------



## coreysMonster

narad said:


> If I'm to borrow some understanding of the German education system from my friend who constantly praises it to me, in Germany a placement test (Arbitur) effectively tracks people into higher education or more vocational training.


Almost: You need an Abitur to go to a university, but there are also things called Hochschulen / Fachhochschulen that grant you a Bachelor/Master degree as well, that you don't need an Abitur for. Instead, you need something called a Fachabitur, which needs less schooling and has lower difficulty standards. The difference is that some things like medicine or law, you can only study at universities, while some things like engineering or computer science, you can study at both - with a general difference being that for instance a mechanical engineer from a university will have had more theoretical, and a mechanical engineer from a Hochschule will have had more hands-on experience (I'm sure there are differences in the humanities as well, but I don't know what they are). I guess you could say Fachhochschulen are a middle-ground between university and trade school, though there is no legal distinction between a degree from a university, or a degree from a Fachhochschule.


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's what the various "shop" classes were for. Steering kids that were academic "under performers" but could work with their hands into the trades.


I graduated high school in '14 and by then shop had been long defunded and the bandsaws were sitting in theater storage (found them 2013 rusting). There's a class war that's been destroying the middle class, trades, and upward mobility for decades. Remember the "art classes are being cut" commercials from like 2005?

I got into an incredibly selective ranked college and have had (so far) a very lucrative career. Instead of making me conservative it made it more obvious how disadvantaged a lot of people are through no fault of their own. The system is broken and the lower class have been brainwashed by Republican ideologies into wrecking their own opportunities. To me this thread is only evidence of such.


----------



## jaxadam

I don’t know how I feel about free education, just look at what’s been happening with all of these YouTube PhDs running amuck.


----------



## Wiltonauer

narad said:


> If I'm to borrow some understanding of the German education system from my friend who constantly praises it to me, in Germany a placement test (Arbitur) effectively tracks people into higher education or more vocational training.
> 
> In the US, I guess the closest thing is the SAT, but that only effectively tracks people into good university or bad university. Bad grades and bad standardized test scores should be some reality check that going further up the college education path isn't likely the path to success for that person, and the cost of education vs. the opportunity cost of not working for 4+ years pretty much guarantees it, but there's no societal mechanism in place to confront young people with that reality.
> 
> Plus the idea of honest work in the US is all messed up. It's somehow better to go to college and fail (or succeed in getting a degree with no job opportunities) than it is to take on a vocational job like electrician/carpentry/plumbing. I know it's not the average, but the plumbers I know are killling it... would be hard to out-earn them with an in-demand grad degree. But if you told me in high school that my future was to be a plumber, it'd be terribly depressing. Maybe if you told me I'd be a plumber with a ferrari it'd be more palatable. And many of the people I met from undergrad basically started their career search negative 1 ferrari in student debt, with lower paying options than the vocational guys.


There is a knee-jerk reaction in our culture to think of plumbers as dumb, ineffectual, heavy-set guys with poor hygiene, bent down under your sink with their cracks showing. (We we watch too much TV.) Good plumbers are smart, and they provide something very valuable. Some plumbers become pipefitters and welders, highly valued in the construction industries. They make good money by doing things the rest of us simply can’t do. Try to look down on that, sitcom writers.


----------

