Student Loan Forgiveness

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, ktgrok said:

it isn't designed to cover the entire budget deficit? 

No it isn't, but the point is that the US government has massive debt and is spending much more than its income every year.  The per capita national debt is approaching $100,000 per US citizen--closer to one quarter of a million dollars for each taxpayer. This would be equivalent to a family that is spending $150,000 per year on a $100,000 income but saying if they raise $3000 by selling lemonade they now have $3000 more to spend on something. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

I hate debt and try to live as debt free as possible. I truly do understand that unmitigated debt can enslave. But at some point we all have to spend money to make money - and that requires debt.

Should the govt not build roads bc individuals should incur the debt and if they can’t, then it’s too risky for the govt too?  Libraries? Hospitals? Police stations? The premise of government good in society for such things is that many hands can do more than individuals on their own and we all benefit from the investment. 

No, spending money to make money does not require debt.  You can SAVE and then spend the money to make money.  If the government does not have a plan for paying back the money that it borrows it is damaging for society.  As we continue to spend, spend, spend as a government through borrowing we are creating debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.  An investment is giving up today to get something tomorrow--it is not borrowing to have money to spend today.  

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, catz said:

Right.  We are a wealthy nation.  European nations have MUCH more reasonable and affordable paths to higher ed.  I don't have all the answers, but if the political will was there, it could be done.  

We should also be helping those pursuing trades.  

I would be in favor of spending government $ in much different ways than we currently do in the US.  European nations have more affordable paths to higher education, but there are also significant differences.  In the European school which I am familiar with, there isn't a writing center, an access and accommodations office, a tutoring office, a counseling center, an advising center, a careers skills center....  Students are on their own to sink or swim.  

[Murphy101]

23 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

No, spending money to make money does not require debt.  You can SAVE and then spend the money to make money.  If the government does not have a plan for paying back the money that it borrows it is damaging for society.  As we continue to spend, spend, spend as a government through borrowing we are creating debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.  An investment is giving up today to get something tomorrow--it is not borrowing to have money to spend today.  

How long do you think it will take for the average person without a degree or certificate to save to attend anywhere reputable?  And while they are saving, what do you think they should be doing? Living off mom and dad (who everyone seems to presume of course have unending resources) No dating or kids? How does the delay affect the economy? How does this impediment affect needed work resources? We already have a labor shortage.  All that has a not small cost attached.

We are giving up something today. It’s called taxes today to pay for such things tomorrow.

Most people will never have more than 20k in their bank account their entire lives. A majority of people researched say they would struggle to pay an unexpected $1000 bill. And you think they will save 6 figures and THEN get a higher education? I don’t know about anyone else, but if I was making enough so that I could set aside that kind of money - why would I feel any need to go to school? Just for the giggles?

Edited March 31, 2022 by Murphy101

[AmandaVT]

9 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

It isn't that people want others to have it hard.   But the ants of the world resent being expected to share our food with the grasshoppers of the world who partied away the summer.   

The implication that keeps popping up is that people with student loan debt partied their way through school. DH is one with a lot of debt. We made payments that were larger than our mortgage for almost 10 years and his balance kept going up. His payments were larger than the mortgage because we bought a tiny fixer upper because of his student loans. We lived very frugally, with both of us working and paying his loans monthly. The balance kept rising. He helps people for a living, but the company is not a non-profit, so he can't apply for public service loan forgiveness. We looked into going the non-profit route, but it is a hard process to become one in this state. So, here we sit, looking at paying $800+ for another 10-15 years. I do not believe we're grasshoppers. We've taken 1 vacation since he graduated, don't go out to eat often, have had to live on <$50/week grocery budget, and generally live frugally. Until last year, we were in a <1,000 sq ft house. 

[ktgrok]

33 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

The implication that keeps popping up is that people with student loan debt partied their way through school. DH is one with a lot of debt. We made payments that were larger than our mortgage for almost 10 years and his balance kept going up. His payments were larger than the mortgage because we bought a tiny fixer upper because of his student loans. We lived very frugally, with both of us working and paying his loans monthly. The balance kept rising. He helps people for a living, but the company is not a non-profit, so he can't apply for public service loan forgiveness. We looked into going the non-profit route, but it is a hard process to become one in this state. So, here we sit, looking at paying $800+ for another 10-15 years. I do not believe we're grasshoppers. We've taken 1 vacation since he graduated, don't go out to eat often, have had to live on <$50/week grocery budget, and generally live frugally. Until last year, we were in a <1,000 sq ft house. 

And this is not uncommon. At all.

[Frances]

11 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

yes. By all means, remodeling the system and how it pays out is not adverse to debt free degrees. 

☺️ Aw. Shucks. You could nominate me, but I’d never take it.  Sounds terrifying! Sure you can quote me. 

Right? It keeps coming around to how dare poor people seek any joy or self determination in life. Why should only the poor have to take on the duty of fixing the social wrongs via various means of indentured work to get their education? Why should only the kids from lower incomes have to complete the same education as someone from a well off family but only kids from poor families have to also work in a ghetto school for 5 years afterwards? Why shouldn’t it be a requirement that all graduates complete X number of years at a reduced pay in service for their education?  Such policies smack of Scrooge saying, “are there no poor houses?” The problem is not that lower income people or young people are too entitled or lazy to use those things. Or even that having a policy of working at a reduced rate for a number of years to pay back the social debt is even a bad idea as a whole.  It’s that they rightly recognize it for the uncharitable “help” it really is. Same as Dickens did. It perpetuates inequality and hardship under a veil of self righteous do-gooderism by elites.

So sure. I think it would be great if all medical and education and science graduates had to work 2-4 years in underserved areas after graduation.  That’s equality. 

I’ll say that in my state the biggest problem when it comes to healthcare degrees is a lack of training slots. While it may be true that some students don’t even apply due to the costs, all of the programs have far, far more qualified applicants than open spots. Making it free would just make it even more competitive than it is now and even more students would be turned away.
 

I’m guessing plenty of students would happily exchange working in an underserved area for a few years for an actual training slot. Actually, what we primarily do in this country is give public funded residencies and green cards for doctors to come from other countries to work in underserved areas. Thus it costs us nothing except the residency cost. Actually educating our own young people costs money. Until recently, my state didn’t even have a public physical therapy program and the new one is quite small and in conjunction with a private college. How pathetic is that? I mean seriously, no full blown public U physical therapy program for a population of 4M.

As for all education and science grads working in underserved areas, we can’t even get enough math and science students who want to be high school teachers, so I don’t see how making them work in underserved areas for a few years is going to help. Plus, those who desire to do so already have ways like Teach for America, that gives an awful lot of prestige to barely trained 22 year old teachers.

And I would argue that the last thing high poverty schools in underserved areas need is a revolving door of young, inexperienced teachers. They need the best and most experienced teachers. At least here, the high poverty schools are plagued by high turnover of faculty and administration.

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Frances

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I would be in favor of spending government $ in much different ways than we currently do in the US.  European nations have more affordable paths to higher education, but there are also significant differences.  In the European school which I am familiar with, there isn't a writing center, an access and accommodations office, a tutoring office, a counseling center, an advising center, a careers skills center....  Students are on their own to sink or swim.  

There also isn’t the eternal second chances there are in the US. It’s a very different system than the US with students tracked at younger ages and many of the countries have more robust apprenticeship and alternative training programs.

I don’t think you can take the best of both the US and the European systems and just combine them. The almost free university European model is because it is more selective and geared primarily to students ready to be successful at age 18 in a traditional university setting.

[Faith-manor]

Murphy nailed it.

At $15 an hour, and working just for laughs, two 32 hr a week jobs for a total of 64 hours, one earns $960 a week or $49,920. The estimated monthly take home is $767 or 39, 884, and this is a person condemned to two part time jobs working more than full time. No health care premium has been taken out, but then again, none is likely to be offered because most jobs in this hourly range do not offer benefits.

Unless this person lives in an urban area with robust transportation - a total HA HA - in my state -, this person has to have a car and car insurance. For further unicorn sightings, let's assume every parent in America can afford to provide a used car in reasonable working shape to said young person. This young adult will need to put away money for car maintenance, a conservative scary estimate for a used car of $100 a month and then $120 a month for insurance (way more in my state). $220 or $2640 annually.

We will assume for the sake of rainbows that they can also afford the housing to live close to work and grocery shopping, pharmacy, etc. and only use 5 gallons a week in gas. Not even a remote possibility where I live, but hey, we will paint a glowing scenario here. So at current gas prices, $20 a week or $1040 a year.

Then because we sighted pots of gold at the end of those rainbows we will assume a reasonably priced apartment with two roommates at $1500 a month including electric, water, and assuming electric heat or air conditioning. $500 for this student's portion. $6000 a year.

Internet - $50 minimum in a lot of areas and necessary because shifts are usually posted online now. $600

Phone plan assuming generous parents gifted a cell phone to student - $50  or $600 a year.

Student has $29,004 left to purchase food, clothing, personal care items, household cleaners, etc. So maybe said student starves himself on total crap food, ramen noodles, boxed mac n cheese, spaghettios, and uses dollar store personal care items and cleaners, so maybe only $240 a month, and $20 for a couple of used items from the Goodwill to replace something ripped, torn, too worn out to wear to work. $65 a week, $3380 a year. $25,624 left.

Let's assume said wonderful middle class parents have group medical insurance and agree to keep said young adult on their policy until age 26, but need student to pay copays and contribute to deductible. Will said student get medical care or will said student look at income level and say, "I better not rack up any medical bills so I can save for college"? For giggles we will budget $50 co pay, and $20 for a prescription per month, and then cross fingers nothing bad goes wrong. $840 Now there is $24,784.

Assuming a student can actually do all of that AND save that much, and absolutely nothing goes wrong with that car, not a single health worry of any kind, no raise in rent, utilities, or car insurance none of which is even realistic, this student can save $99,136.00. Said student then can buy their education IF they can cut back their hours enough to handle full time college for four years. But, they will also age off their parent's medical plan, and will need to buy insurance since colleges require this now. Some colleges do offer campus policies, student only, so maybe $300 a month. In many states an uninsured adult grossing $49,000 a year is not eligible for medicaid.

This student will also be trashed by FAFSA because that system is designed to punish students whose parents are not utterly impoverished. No student cannot be declared independent before 24 years of age unless married or has a child. So his $99,000 in savings smacks him right square in the ass. He will not be eligible for any grants nor subsidized federal student loans, only unsubsidized. The student will likely receive nothing from the college by way of financial assistance.

Merit aid. Let's look at MSU, According to their site, the average merit award is $500-$1500 per semester. Tuition and fees, $14,000+ not including books and supplies which do not commonly fall below $500 a semester so $15,000+ per year. Maybe this person gets enough merit aid to cover the books and supplies so we will go with that $14,000 for the first two years. That increases a good bit for the 2nd two years because colleges charge more for upper division classes and labs, and usually have  2-5% increase every year, so the budget should be for 14,000 for the first year, 14,700 2nd year, $15,735 plus whatever increase there is for junior/senior level work. We have found that to be anywhere from $1500-3000 a year. We will go with the lower figure so $17,235 junior year, and $18,021 senior year these last two figures also containing the usual annual tuition increase. Grand total $63,956 leaving the student roughly $36,000 in savings to live on while going to school full time for four years and assuming a program that one can actually get through in four years. It assumes only 120 credit hours to graduation, except my son's engineering program is 132 credits, and my own music degrees back in the mists of the Jurassic period were 136 due to 124 of regular coursework and 12 of performance credits. 

This assumes not one blessed thing goes wrong. Not one. That gifted used car remains just the energized bunny of cars that never needs a major repair. There is never a health issue, never an emergency room visit, the landlord actually repairs stuff, and the roommates pay on time and never have any emergencies causing them to not be able to pay up. It assumes mom and dad have the resources to do all of these things for junior. It assumes junior has endless energy to work 64 hours a week while eating ramen noodles and spaghetti. It assume that in four years, nothing significant in their wardrobe needs to be replaced, the cell phone does not conk out, literally nothing goes wrong, and I totally forgot to stick renter's insurance into that. In and NEVER a bridesmaid or groomsman for better off friends because it is insane how much bride and groomzillas expect their party to fork out for clothes, gifts, travel, etc. Just say no young people!

It.is.not.reasonable. We, as a nation should be ashamed to think it is reasonable.

It also has long term effects. Whereas in the days of a high school diploma means something, and a living wage could be obtained on it, young adults entered the workplace at 18 or in the case of college students, 22. Many would marry and have children soon. Most could afford to buy a home, furnish it, and take a nice vacation, replace new cars every five to six years by the age of 30. Young workers were vital to the economy by providing dollars to support a broken social security system, and to be buying stuff from places besides Kmart and the dollar store.

This is not happening today. The birthrate is dropping, and millennials and GenZers are in their 20s-30s/even early 40's, and cannot get their heads above water. They are still paying student loans off in order to have training that leads to enough salary to keep them from being homeless. Some are still living at home because their parents are okay with a 30 year old in the basement, many are not. A bunch are living in vans, and van camping for years until they get out of debt and can save some money. They are not going to own homes, many will never buy a new car, or take a vacation, or buy nice furniture, or new appliances, or power tools from Home Depot, or a ton of other consumer things that this economy is built on. Some will go into fields that allow them to migrate to countries with universal healthcare and they won't come back. That brain drain has begun. Many look at how the entire system is stacked against them while being absolutely vilified by Baby Boomers and Gen Zers and will never have a child thus making the birthrate plummet even more and further shrink the worker population of the future. Fewer and fewer folks will pay into social security, meanwhile the largest welfare generation ever the Boomers will on average contribute, according to Wall.St Watch Dog, $270,000 ish to SS, and take out $332,000, and from Forbes (this is an old article, but I was too lazy to sift through pages of internet search so we will just assume the numbers hold), a two earner couple who retire at 65 in 2010, paid $122,000 to medicare, and will receive $387,000 in healthcare benefits.

Do I consider retirees to be "welfare queens"? Absolutely not. But IF that term were legitimate and going to be bandied about, it would apply to them more than anyone. When in 2030 we reach a place where there are only 2 workers per social security receiving retiree, congress will raise the social security tax by leaps and bounds. Less take home pay for Millenials and GenZ. So they have to survive on less and less and less in a system so stacked against them, they may as well be swimming up stream at Niagara Falls with anvils tied to their ankles and arms.

So because somewhere there is some frat kid who took out student loans and partied for life and never paid them back, I am not willing to punish the ones who did the best they could and still got screwed by a system designed from top to bottom to screw them over for greed, voted in to law and policy by people they never voted for and facing all this corruption very few options of anyone to vote for who will actually do something about it, and all with the neat hat trick of previous generations looting and pillaging the planet and then sticking them with the bones.

I would forgive that debt, pay it back, whatever if I could do, and give them UBI, and have universal health care on par with Denmark and Norway, and upend and fix k12 education, and just go "Jesus turns the tables over in the Temple and Chases the administrators out with a whip" on higher education. I would fund it all by cutting the defense budget by half or more thus not paying greedy corporations to make new ways of murdering people and make the best retirement communities and hospitals for our veterans, totally free, and take the loopholes out of the tax code so Amazon and Google actually have to pay into the system that supports their business. 

I don't think that will be happening!

Can I also say that I am very angry that because the tax dollars we have dutifully paid have not been used to create a robust public education, we here have foregone a tremendous amount of income and ability to save in order to educate our children, and we are treated like drains on the system though we did, unpaid, the job that was not being done that WE were paying to be done? That makes me sooooo mad!

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

We are giving up something today. It’s called taxes today to pay for such things tomorrow.

 

The point is we are not doing this.  As the US we are spending money today that will have to be paid for by taxes in the future. The government is spending MUCH more money than it is bringing in in taxes today and borrowing a significant amount of money

[Eos]

8 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Murphy nailed it.

At $15 an hour, and working just for laughs, two 32 hr a week jobs for a total of 64 hours, one earns $960 a week or $49,920. The estimated monthly take home is $767 or 39, 884, and this is a person condemned to two part time jobs working more than full time. No health care premium has been taken out, but then again, none is likely to be offered because most jobs in this hourly range do not offer benefits.

Unless this person lives in an urban area with robust transportation - a total HA HA - in my state -, this person has to have a car and car insurance. For further unicorn sightings, let's assume every parent in America can afford to provide a used car in reasonable working shape to said young person. This young adult will need to put away money for car maintenance, a conservative scary estimate for a used car of $100 a month and then $120 a month for insurance (way more in my state). $220 or $2640 annually.

We will assume for the sake of rainbows that they can also afford the housing to live close to work and grocery shopping, pharmacy, etc. and only use 5 gallons a week in gas. Not even a remote possibility where I live, but hey, we will paint a glowing scenario here. So at current gas prices, $20 a week or $1040 a year.

Then because we sighted pots of gold at the end of those rainbows we will assume a reasonably priced apartment with two roommates at $1500 a month including electric, water, and assuming electric heat or air conditioning. $500 for this student's portion. $6000 a year.

Internet - $50 minimum in a lot of areas and necessary because shifts are usually posted online now. $600

Phone plan assuming generous parents gifted a cell phone to student - $50  or $600 a year.

Student has $29,004 left to purchase food, clothing, personal care items, household cleaners, etc. So maybe said student starves himself on total crap food, ramen noodles, boxed mac n cheese, spaghettios, and uses dollar store personal care items and cleaners, so maybe only $240 a month, and $20 for a couple of used items from the Goodwill to replace something ripped, torn, too worn out to wear to work. $65 a week, $3380 a year. $25,624 left.

Let's assume said wonderful middle class parents have group medical insurance and agree to keep said young adult on their policy until age 26, but need student to pay copays and contribute to deductible. Will said student get medical care or will said student look at income level and say, "I better not rack up any medical bills so I can save for college"? For giggles we will budget $50 co pay, and $20 for a prescription per month, and then cross fingers nothing bad goes wrong. $840 Now there is $24,784.

Assuming a student can actually do all of that AND save that much, and absolutely nothing goes wrong with that car, not a single health worry of any kind, no raise in rent, utilities, or car insurance none of which is even realistic, this student can save $99,136.00. Said student then can buy their education IF they can cut back their hours enough to handle full time college for four years. But, they will also age off their parent's medical plan, and will need to buy insurance since colleges require this now. Some colleges do offer campus policies, student only, so maybe $300 a month. In many states an uninsured adult grossing $49,000 a year is not eligible for medicaid.

This student will also be trashed by FAFSA because that system is designed to punish students whose parents are not utterly impoverished. No student cannot be declared independent before 24 years of age unless married or has a child. So his $99,000 in savings smacks him right square in the ass. He will not be eligible for any grants nor subsidized federal student loans, only unsubsidized. The student will likely receive nothing from the college by way of financial assistance.

Merit aid. Let's look at MSU, According to their site, the average merit award is $500-$1500 per semester. Tuition and fees, $14,000+ not including books and supplies which do not commonly fall below $500 a semester so $15,000+ per year. Maybe this person gets enough merit aid to cover the books and supplies so we will go with that $14,000 for the first two years. That increases a good bit for the 2nd two years because colleges charge more for upper division classes and labs, and usually have  2-5% increase every year, so the budget should be for 14,000 for the first year, 14,700 2nd year, $15,735 plus whatever increase there is for junior/senior level work. We have found that to be anywhere from $1500-3000 a year. We will go with the lower figure so $17,235 junior year, and $18,021 senior year these last two figures also containing the usual annual tuition increase. Grand total $63,956 leaving the student roughly $36,000 in savings to live on while going to school full time for four years and assuming a program that one can actually get through in four years. It assumes only 120 credit hours to graduation, except my son's engineering program is 132 credits, and my own music degrees back in the mists of the Jurassic period were 136 due to 124 of regular coursework and 12 of performance credits. 

This assumes not one blessed thing goes wrong. Not one. That gifted used car remains just the energized bunny of cars that never needs a major repair. There is never a health issue, never an emergency room visit, the landlord actually repairs stuff, and the roommates pay on time and never have any emergencies causing them to not be able to pay up. It assumes mom and dad have the resources to do all of these things for junior. It assumes junior has endless energy to work 64 hours a week while eating ramen noodles and spaghetti. It assume that in four years, nothing significant in their wardrobe needs to be replaced, the cell phone does not conk out, literally nothing goes wrong, and I totally forgot to stick renter's insurance into that. In and NEVER a bridesmaid or groomsman for better off friends because it is insane how much bride and groomzillas expect their party to fork out for clothes, gifts, travel, etc. Just say no young people!

It.is.not.reasonable. We, as a nation should be ashamed to think it is reasonable.

It also has long term effects. Whereas in the days of a high school diploma means something, and a living wage could be obtained on it, young adults entered the workplace at 18 or in the case of college students, 22. Many would marry and have children soon. Most could afford to buy a home, furnish it, and take a nice vacation, replace new cars every five to six years by the age of 30. Young workers were vital to the economy by providing dollars to support a broken social security system, and to be buying stuff from places besides Kmart and the dollar store.

This is not happening today. The birthrate is dropping, and millennials and GenZers are in their 20s-30s/even early 40's, and cannot get their heads above water. They are still paying student loans off in order to have training that leads to enough salary to keep them from being homeless. Some are still living at home because their parents are okay with a 30 year old in the basement, many are not. A bunch are living in vans, and van camping for years until they get out of debt and can save some money. They are not going to own homes, many will never buy a new car, or take a vacation, or buy nice furniture, or new appliances, or power tools from Home Depot, or a ton of other consumer things that this economy is built on. Some will go into fields that allow them to migrate to countries with universal healthcare and they won't come back. That brain drain has begun. Many look at how the entire system is stacked against them while being absolutely vilified by Baby Boomers and Gen Zers and will never have a child thus making the birthrate plummet even more and further shrink the worker population of the future. Fewer and fewer folks will pay into social security, meanwhile the largest welfare generation ever the Boomers will on average contribute, according to Wall.St Watch Dog, $270,000 ish to SS, and take out $332,000, and from Forbes (this is an old article, but I was too lazy to sift through pages of internet search so we will just assume the numbers hold), a two earner couple who retire at 65 in 2010, paid $122,000 to medicare, and will receive $387,000 in healthcare benefits.

Do I consider retirees to be "welfare queens"? Absolutely not. But IF that term were legitimate and going to be bandied about, it would apply to them more than anyone. When in 2030 we reach a place where there are only 2 workers per social security receiving retiree, congress will raise the social security tax by leaps and bounds. Less take home pay for Millenials and GenZ. So they have to survive on less and less and less in a system so stacked against them, they may as well be swimming up stream at Niagara Falls with anvils tied to their ankles and arms.

So because somewhere there is some frat kid who took out student loans and partied for life and never paid them back, I am not willing to punish the ones who did the best they could and still got screwed by a system designed from top to bottom to screw them over for greed, voted in to law and policy by people they never voted for and facing all this corruption very few options of anyone to vote for who will actually do something about it, and all with the neat hat trick of previous generations looting and pillaging the planet and then sticking them with the bones.

I would forgive that debt, pay it back, whatever if I could do, and give them UBI, and have universal health care on par with Denmark and Norway, and upend and fix k12 education, and just go "Jesus turns the tables over in the Temple and Chases the administrators out with a whip" on higher education. I would fund it all by cutting the defense budget by half or more thus not paying greedy corporations to make new ways of murdering people and make the best retirement communities and hospitals for our veterans, totally free, and take the loopholes out of the tax code so Amazon and Google actually have to pay into the system that supports their business. 

I don't think that will be happening!

Can I also say that I am very angry that because the tax dollars we have dutifully paid have not been used to create a robust public education, we here have foregone a tremendous amount of income and ability to save in order to educate our children, and we are treated like drains on the system though we did, unpaid, the job that was not being done that WE were paying to be done? That makes me sooooo mad!

Preach.

[ktgrok]

12 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Murphy nailed it.

At $15 an hour, and working just for laughs, two 32 hr a week jobs for a total of 64 hours, one earns $960 a week or $49,920. The estimated monthly take home is $767 or 39, 884, and this is a person condemned to two part time jobs working more than full time. No health care premium has been taken out, but then again, none is likely to be offered because most jobs in this hourly range do not offer benefits.

Unless this person lives in an urban area with robust transportation - a total HA HA - in my state -, this person has to have a car and car insurance. For further unicorn sightings, let's assume every parent in America can afford to provide a used car in reasonable working shape to said young person. This young adult will need to put away money for car maintenance, a conservative scary estimate for a used car of $100 a month and then $120 a month for insurance (way more in my state). $220 or $2640 annually.

We will assume for the sake of rainbows that they can also afford the housing to live close to work and grocery shopping, pharmacy, etc. and only use 5 gallons a week in gas. Not even a remote possibility where I live, but hey, we will paint a glowing scenario here. So at current gas prices, $20 a week or $1040 a year.

Then because we sighted pots of gold at the end of those rainbows we will assume a reasonably priced apartment with two roommates at $1500 a month including electric, water, and assuming electric heat or air conditioning. $500 for this student's portion. $6000 a year.

Internet - $50 minimum in a lot of areas and necessary because shifts are usually posted online now. $600

Phone plan assuming generous parents gifted a cell phone to student - $50  or $600 a year.

Student has $29,004 left to purchase food, clothing, personal care items, household cleaners, etc. So maybe said student starves himself on total crap food, ramen noodles, boxed mac n cheese, spaghettios, and uses dollar store personal care items and cleaners, so maybe only $240 a month, and $20 for a couple of used items from the Goodwill to replace something ripped, torn, too worn out to wear to work. $65 a week, $3380 a year. $25,624 left.

Let's assume said wonderful middle class parents have group medical insurance and agree to keep said young adult on their policy until age 26, but need student to pay copays and contribute to deductible. Will said student get medical care or will said student look at income level and say, "I better not rack up any medical bills so I can save for college"? For giggles we will budget $50 co pay, and $20 for a prescription per month, and then cross fingers nothing bad goes wrong. $840 Now there is $24,784.

Assuming a student can actually do all of that AND save that much, and absolutely nothing goes wrong with that car, not a single health worry of any kind, no raise in rent, utilities, or car insurance none of which is even realistic, this student can save $99,136.00. Said student then can buy their education IF they can cut back their hours enough to handle full time college for four years. But, they will also age off their parent's medical plan, and will need to buy insurance since colleges require this now. Some colleges do offer campus policies, student only, so maybe $300 a month. In many states an uninsured adult grossing $49,000 a year is not eligible for medicaid.

This student will also be trashed by FAFSA because that system is designed to punish students whose parents are not utterly impoverished. No student cannot be declared independent before 24 years of age unless married or has a child. So his $99,000 in savings smacks him right square in the ass. He will not be eligible for any grants nor subsidized federal student loans, only unsubsidized. The student will likely receive nothing from the college by way of financial assistance.

Merit aid. Let's look at MSU, According to their site, the average merit award is $500-$1500 per semester. Tuition and fees, $14,000+ not including books and supplies which do not commonly fall below $500 a semester so $15,000+ per year. Maybe this person gets enough merit aid to cover the books and supplies so we will go with that $14,000 for the first two years. That increases a good bit for the 2nd two years because colleges charge more for upper division classes and labs, and usually have  2-5% increase every year, so the budget should be for 14,000 for the first year, 14,700 2nd year, $15,735 plus whatever increase there is for junior/senior level work. We have found that to be anywhere from $1500-3000 a year. We will go with the lower figure so $17,235 junior year, and $18,021 senior year these last two figures also containing the usual annual tuition increase. Grand total $63,956 leaving the student roughly $36,000 in savings to live on while going to school full time for four years and assuming a program that one can actually get through in four years. It assumes only 120 credit hours to graduation, except my son's engineering program is 132 credits, and my own music degrees back in the mists of the Jurassic period were 136 due to 124 of regular coursework and 12 of performance credits. 

This assumes not one blessed thing goes wrong. Not one. That gifted used car remains just the energized bunny of cars that never needs a major repair. There is never a health issue, never an emergency room visit, the landlord actually repairs stuff, and the roommates pay on time and never have any emergencies causing them to not be able to pay up. It assumes mom and dad have the resources to do all of these things for junior. It assumes junior has endless energy to work 64 hours a week while eating ramen noodles and spaghetti. It assume that in four years, nothing significant in their wardrobe needs to be replaced, the cell phone does not conk out, literally nothing goes wrong, and I totally forgot to stick renter's insurance into that. In and NEVER a bridesmaid or groomsman for better off friends because it is insane how much bride and groomzillas expect their party to fork out for clothes, gifts, travel, etc. Just say no young people!

It.is.not.reasonable. We, as a nation should be ashamed to think it is reasonable.

It also has long term effects. Whereas in the days of a high school diploma means something, and a living wage could be obtained on it, young adults entered the workplace at 18 or in the case of college students, 22. Many would marry and have children soon. Most could afford to buy a home, furnish it, and take a nice vacation, replace new cars every five to six years by the age of 30. Young workers were vital to the economy by providing dollars to support a broken social security system, and to be buying stuff from places besides Kmart and the dollar store.

This is not happening today. The birthrate is dropping, and millennials and GenZers are in their 20s-30s/even early 40's, and cannot get their heads above water. They are still paying student loans off in order to have training that leads to enough salary to keep them from being homeless. Some are still living at home because their parents are okay with a 30 year old in the basement, many are not. A bunch are living in vans, and van camping for years until they get out of debt and can save some money. They are not going to own homes, many will never buy a new car, or take a vacation, or buy nice furniture, or new appliances, or power tools from Home Depot, or a ton of other consumer things that this economy is built on. Some will go into fields that allow them to migrate to countries with universal healthcare and they won't come back. That brain drain has begun. Many look at how the entire system is stacked against them while being absolutely vilified by Baby Boomers and Gen Zers and will never have a child thus making the birthrate plummet even more and further shrink the worker population of the future. Fewer and fewer folks will pay into social security, meanwhile the largest welfare generation ever the Boomers will on average contribute, according to Wall.St Watch Dog, $270,000 ish to SS, and take out $332,000, and from Forbes (this is an old article, but I was too lazy to sift through pages of internet search so we will just assume the numbers hold), a two earner couple who retire at 65 in 2010, paid $122,000 to medicare, and will receive $387,000 in healthcare benefits.

Do I consider retirees to be "welfare queens"? Absolutely not. But IF that term were legitimate and going to be bandied about, it would apply to them more than anyone. When in 2030 we reach a place where there are only 2 workers per social security receiving retiree, congress will raise the social security tax by leaps and bounds. Less take home pay for Millenials and GenZ. So they have to survive on less and less and less in a system so stacked against them, they may as well be swimming up stream at Niagara Falls with anvils tied to their ankles and arms.

So because somewhere there is some frat kid who took out student loans and partied for life and never paid them back, I am not willing to punish the ones who did the best they could and still got screwed by a system designed from top to bottom to screw them over for greed, voted in to law and policy by people they never voted for and facing all this corruption very few options of anyone to vote for who will actually do something about it, and all with the neat hat trick of previous generations looting and pillaging the planet and then sticking them with the bones.

I would forgive that debt, pay it back, whatever if I could do, and give them UBI, and have universal health care on par with Denmark and Norway, and upend and fix k12 education, and just go "Jesus turns the tables over in the Temple and Chases the administrators out with a whip" on higher education. I would fund it all by cutting the defense budget by half or more thus not paying greedy corporations to make new ways of murdering people and make the best retirement communities and hospitals for our veterans, totally free, and take the loopholes out of the tax code so Amazon and Google actually have to pay into the system that supports their business. 

I don't think that will be happening!

Can I also say that I am very angry that because the tax dollars we have dutifully paid have not been used to create a robust public education, we here have foregone a tremendous amount of income and ability to save in order to educate our children, and we are treated like drains on the system though we did, unpaid, the job that was not being done that WE were paying to be done? That makes me sooooo mad!

Ok, since Murphy declined the presidential nomination, I'm going to have to vote for you 🙂

[Bootsie]

59 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

The implication that keeps popping up is that people with student loan debt partied their way through school. DH is one with a lot of debt. We made payments that were larger than our mortgage for almost 10 years and his balance kept going up. His payments were larger than the mortgage because we bought a tiny fixer upper because of his student loans. We lived very frugally, with both of us working and paying his loans monthly. The balance kept rising. He helps people for a living, but the company is not a non-profit, so he can't apply for public service loan forgiveness. We looked into going the non-profit route, but it is a hard process to become one in this state. So, here we sit, looking at paying $800+ for another 10-15 years. I do not believe we're grasshoppers. We've taken 1 vacation since he graduated, don't go out to eat often, have had to live on <$50/week grocery budget, and generally live frugally. Until last year, we were in a <1,000 sq ft house. 

You do not have to answer this personally, but I am trying to make sense of these numbers.  If I read this correctly you are saying that student loan payments are $800 per month, you have paid them for 10 years and you have 10-15 years to go.  If I assume an 8% interest rate, paid off at $800 per month for 25 years, that would be over $188,000 of debt that is being paid off.  

[Faith-manor]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Ok, since Murphy declined the presidential nomination, I'm going to have to vote for you 🙂

That's hilarious! 

It won't happen. Someone is going to dredge up that email I sent a certain politican in a certain state we were living in a certain year that will not be named many moons ago when I said, "_____ if I had the money, I would rent every billboard in this state and post your pathetic, lazy ass, voting record and the amount of money you take from lobbyists! You sir, are a thieving, immoral weasel."

Yes, I sent it. I said it. Not my finest hour for sure. So someone is going to haul that out and scream, "Her emails" and that will be the end of my political aspirations. Then there will be an SNL skit about me, and who needs that? 😂

[AmandaVT]

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

You do not have to answer this personally, but I am trying to make sense of these numbers.  If I read this correctly you are saying that student loan payments are $800 per month, you have paid them for 10 years and you have 10-15 years to go.  If I assume an 8% interest rate, paid off at $800 per month for 25 years, that would be over $188,000 of debt that is being paid off.  

We did income based repayment, so the payments did not start that high. But, last I checked, the interest rate was right around 7%. His current scheduled payments once the covid forbearance ends will be $805. I 100% understand that using the income based repayment meant that not much was going to the principal. But when he worked for a local mental health agency, he made peanuts (jobs at our local agency TOP out at around $40k unless you're in upper management). So the balance went up monthly. It was either use income based repayment or default. We had no car payments, a crappy house, a tiny grocery budget, and were barely making ends meet. There was nothing to cut. I started working a second job to try to get us ahead, so now I work 2 full time jobs (thankfully one is at home and very flexible hours). As soon as we start to get more comfortable, the payments start going up. It feels like a noose tightening. We took advantage of the housing market to sell and get ourselves into a slightly bigger house, closer to work for both of us, and thankfully our payment isn't much higher. So we can afford the $800 now, but it really is soul sucking. 

 

Thankfully my degree was largely paid by my school district. I took out modest loans (less than $20k) for what my school didn't pay or what I couldn't afford out of pocket. I work at a Title 1 school as a special educator in a low paying district, so I am hoping I will qualify for the teacher loan forgiveness after 5 years of payments. It's doable- it just is draining. Once we pay both of our loans off, I'll continue to hope that the system gets overhauled, others get their loans forgiven, and people don't have to basically sell their soul for an education.

[Murphy101]

30 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

That's hilarious! 

It won't happen. Someone is going to dredge up that email I sent a certain politican in a certain state we were living in a certain year that will not be named many moons ago when I said, "_____ if I had the money, I would rent every billboard in this state and post your pathetic, lazy ass, voting record and the amount of money you take from lobbyists! You sir, are a thieving, immoral weasel."

Yes, I sent it. I said it. Not my finest hour for sure. So someone is going to haul that out and scream, "Her emails" and that will be the end of my political aspirations. Then there will be an SNL skit about me, and who needs that? 😂

If that keeps you from being prez, I never had a chance bc I for sure have documentation somewhere of far worse than saying that and other doings in my life. Heck. In just yesterday. 🤭🥴😂

[Frances]

9 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

I guess there are some questions in my mind:

1. Do you think young people, like your daughter, should be limited in their educational opportunities based on finances, or should they be encouraged to reach for the best educational opportunities they can attain without regard for their family's wealth?

2. Do you really want people who come after you to suffer those stresses you endured?

3. Can you turn your bitterness over your own lack of opportunities into compassion for the future generations of students (your children and grandchildren included)?

4. Do you think the high cost of education and resulting 25 years of student loans stifles the economy (ie. people's ability to attend post-secondary school to begin with, start a family, or become a homeowner), and if so is that a price you think society should bear because you struggled in the past?

Personally, I feel like education should be free for everyone who sincerely wants to learn - so free education for anyone who continues to show growth as a student.  And I think it was wrong that you were forced to pay for your education - I'm sorry that happened to you.  And the past is behind us, so we should find some acceptance, let go, and move on.  And continuing to do wrong things as a society because we were wronged does no-one any good while preventing growth.

Research in many fields has concluded that society benefits on all measures when citizens are more well-educated.  It is my educated opinion that free education (which amounts to canceling current student loans and not creating new ones - gotta start somewhere) is the best way to accomplish this.

 

I have to say that what they did for two years in order to pay off all of their student debt loan doesn’t sound all that stressful. It sounds smart and the ability to do so likely bodes very well for their future in multiple ways. My husband and I never had much student debt, but we spent a significant part of our adult years living on next to nothing while getting three grad STEM degrees between us. Not only did that give us excellent financial management skills, but it taught us to appreciate the simple things in life and closely bonded us with others doing the same, sacrificing money and luxuries in order to pursue our educational goals. Living on $12k per year in married family housing while my husband pursued his PhD was some of the very best years of my life.

Here in the US, we have an incredibly wide range of educational opportunities with extremely varying price tags. This is quite different from other countries. People often mistake the very expensive options for being the best options. Many states already have programs where qualified students can go debt free to CC or state universities. Expanding those seems more sensible than saying the government should provide everyone with free higher education of whatever type they desire.

Plus, if you don’t care about the credential, there is a plethora of ways to learn for little or no money. My local LAC allows classes to be audited for $50 each. There are tons of free or cheap online classes. Libraries are full of free resources.

And before we start providing more free higher education, how about actually providing quality k12 education for all? So many students end up taking remedial college classes or having their options limited because they have nowhere near high school level reading, writing, and math skills. We don’t have a highly educated society because we generally are failing our young people in grades k12. Making college free is not going to fix that fundamental problem.

As for pilots and nurses, two things mentioned by another poster, many, many healthcare systems have tuition assistance programs for their employees. Lots of people work their way up the healthcare ladder by starting at the bottom and working and getting tuition assistance while going to school. I’ve know several people who have moved from pharmacy tech to pharmacists and CNA or phlebotomist to RN to BSN to nurse practitioner. In my state, Alaska Airlines just announced a special pilot training programs with grants and low interest loans. Having employers cover part of the costs of educating and training their employees makes far more sense to me than the government paying for all of it.

I can get on board with cancelling interest, but not cancelling debt and eliminating it for the future. The only way I can see going that route is adopting the European model of university education and different apprenticeship and training programs. So students are tracked from younger ages and university is only for a select portion of the population.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Frances

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

How long do you think it will take for the average person without a degree or certificate to save to attend anywhere reputable?  And while they are saving, what do you think they should be doing? Living off mom and dad (who everyone seems to presume of course have unending resources) No dating or kids? How does the delay affect the economy? How does this impediment affect needed work resources? We already have a labor shortage.  All that has a not small cost attached.

We are giving up something today. It’s called taxes today to pay for such things tomorrow.

Most people will never have more than 20k in their bank account their entire lives. A majority of people researched say they would struggle to pay an unexpected $1000 bill. And you think they will save 6 figures and THEN get a higher education? I don’t know about anyone else, but if I was making enough so that I could set aside that kind of money - why would I feel any need to go to school? Just for the giggles?

I did not say anything about an average person without a degree saving for a college education before attending--that very issue is the reason why student loans exist.  I have not argued for ending student loans.  I was pointing out that the "spending money to make money" does not equate with you have to have debt to make money.  

[Murphy101]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I did not say anything about an average person without a degree saving for a college education before attending--that very issue is the reason why student loans exist.  I have not argued for ending student loans.  I was pointing out that the "spending money to make money" does not equate with you have to have debt to make money.  

So it’s okay for lower income people to have to have debt (student loans) to make money (get jobs)? How does that make more sense?

Edited April 1, 2022 by Murphy101

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

So it’s okay for lower income people to have to have debt (student loans) to make money (get jobs)? How does that make more sense?

If someone thinks that spending money on an education will increase their income by more than the amount that they are spending on the education (in other words a good investment) then borrowing money to do that would make sense.  

[Murphy101]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

If someone thinks that spending money on an education will increase their income by more than the amount that they are spending on the education (in other words a good investment) then borrowing money to do that would make sense.  

More and more often it’s not even about making more money - it’s about making money at all. In a digital world where employers never see an applicant if they can’t check the degree box - it’s no job or any job scenarios for employment.  That’s the literal reason my husband is in college right now while working. Repeatedly seeing people less qualified get jobs he would be great for bc they have any degree at all.  We can disagree with that all we want but that disagreement for decades has not changed the job market.

And how does your stance fit in with the mantra low income people constantly hear that if they don’t like their work conditions or income they should go to school to improve their options? I have always thought that was bs for many reasons but it is the most common refrain they hear.

And keep in mind the exact same financial aid forms used for colleges are used for trades too.  Trades are often not faster and can be surprisingly expensive to people with this stance. With just as many graduates ending up in low pay situations. 

[ktgrok]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

If someone thinks that spending money on an education will increase their income by more than the amount that they are spending on the education (in other words a good investment) then borrowing money to do that would make sense.  

Given how many people graduated in a recession where they suddenly were making way less than expected (and are a lot of the people this effects), AND how quickly and often the economy and jobs in general change, that's a lot to be able to predict for say, a teenager deciding a major. 

And of course, that most teens don't know what they are doing to do for a career yet. 

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Given how many people graduated in a recession where they suddenly were making way less than expected (and are a lot of the people this effects), AND how quickly and often the economy and jobs in general change, that's a lot to be able to predict for say, a teenager deciding a major. 

And of course, that most teens don't know what they are doing to do for a career yet. 

Yup! I think people really like to smugly sh!t all over the next generation in general. Our culture has a sick fascination with making ourselves feel better about our own life choices that didn't turn out so great by crapping on the ones down a rung of the ladder. I am just tired of it. I have two Millenials, and two GenZ's (depending on which generation range you use, could be one M), and they and their friends are phenomenal people, and way better at evaluating life than I was at those same ages. Way better. 

I love how in many states we don't let them buy a beer until they are 21, because reasons, but then turn around and shove legally binding promissory notes under the fingers, expect them to know exactly what jobs will be available and high paying 20 years into the future, and never make a wrong financial decision, and play a brilliant game of chess with a system designed to take advantage of them, all while.being infantalized by high school policy, and given crap for education. But a beer is a bridge too far. Nothing like hanging them out to dry, and then getting mad when that has consequences.

Our culture is whackadoodle!

[SKL]

11 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

So it’s okay for lower income people to have to have debt (student loans) to make money (get jobs)? How does that make more sense?

Because having an education normally pays off in the long run.

Better to work hard and live frugally for 15-20 years, and end up doing a job that supports your family and enables you to give back, than to live frugally and frustrated for a lifetime.

People need to stop making everything about the fact that some people have it easy.  That's never gonna change.  Not in the US or any other country - including communist China and Russia.  We need to focus on what we can control and do the best we can with that.

[skimomma]

11 hours ago, Frances said:

I have to say that what they did for two years in order to pay off all of their student debt loan doesn’t sound all that stressful. It sounds smart and the ability to do so likely bodes very well for their future in multiple ways. My husband and I never had much student debt, but we spent a significant part of our adult years living on next to nothing while getting three grad STEM degrees between us. Not only did that give us excellent financial management skills, but it taught us to appreciate the simple things in life and closely bonded us with others doing the same, sacrificing money and luxuries in order to pursue our educational goals. Living on $12k per year in married family housing while my husband pursued his PhD was some of the very best years of my life.

 

I didn't respond directly to the post you quoted because I think I had addressed most of the questions in other posts, but this is correct.  It was not stressful or "suffering."  We had plenty to eat and probably enjoyed our lives as much as we would have had we decided to spend extra on non-essentials, lengthening the time of our debt repayment.  It was a calculated decision because we wanted to be able to purchase a house and was largely shut out of that possibility due to our debt load.  We figured getting out from under that debt was a freedom.  It happened that our careers and life paths look many unexpected detours and freedom from that debt gave us much more flexibility.  So given that, yes, I would wish that for others if there is indeed no way to do college without acquiring any debt to begin with.  I do have a maybe-irrational concern that having no financial skin in the game will make it harder for students to value their educational opportunities. (I say maybe-irrational because I think that could be another boot-strappy myth I need to shake.....) 

We also had the benefit of graduating with degrees in good paying and stable professions.  I am sure I made financial missteps.  Probably a lot, actually.  But I am now seeing that those missteps could have landed me in need of debt forgiveness if my income potential and stability was less forgiving.  

That career choice was also a compromise.  I chose it largely because I knew it was going to be a stable career option.  I did not go into my first choice of study because it was not.  My parents advised me as to debt vs. earning potential and I was mature enough at 18 to believe them rather than ignore their advice.  That does not mean it was the "right" thing to do.  Maybe I would be much happier and personally fulfilled had I followed my dream?  Or maybe I would be on this thread sharing my personal experiences of debt that I cannot shake.  

We are facing that with my dd.  She is currently studying for a degree that is not her first choice because we have been very open about the realities of needing to make adequate income to cover needs and debts.  In her case, largely because of immense privilege, specifically lots of very educated and connected people to advise her, she has the resources to make the degree lead to her career path of first choice.  A happy compromise, I hope.  But who knows?

I have come to learn, largely based on people sharing in this thread, that the resentment I was discussing in my OP was a bit misplaced.  I do actually know real live people who are carrying student loan debt 20+ years after graduation who very well could have paid that debt off well before now.  And done so easily.  They made choices to spend on non-essentials, even luxury goods, instead.  Not because they weren't savvy.  Not because they had no access to good financial education/tools.  Simply because they lacked the will-power to delay gratification.  The refrain I heard from some of my peers during the years I was driving an ancient car with no AC was "I worked hard in college for the last 4, 6, etc... years and I deserve nice things!"  Having their debt erased now seems like rewarding irresponsible behavior.  And because that is the most common situation I see with my own experiences, I had projected that onto the idea that debt forgiveness would be largely benefitting these people rather than the many other situations I have learned about from others on this thread.

If there is no way to tease out the people who could have paid or still could pay their debts without hardship, that is a collateral damage we may have to accept in order to help the people who are truly unable to get a handle on their debt.  Just as we do for people who take advantage of other social programs.  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Given how many people graduated in a recession where they suddenly were making way less than expected (and are a lot of the people this effects), AND how quickly and often the economy and jobs in general change, that's a lot to be able to predict for say, a teenager deciding a major. 

And of course, that most teens don't know what they are doing to do for a career yet. 

These are even more reasons why I don't think it is a good idea for the government to pay for this.  If there is not a return on investment, if the individual can't predict what will be a job that is productive, and doesn't even know what they will do for a career, then it isn't "investment" if it is government money just like it isn't if it is the individual's money.  In fact, making it free intensifies the problem because the individual is not encouraged as much to consider those things; yes, life is unpredictable, but we don't just ignore planning and making the wisest decisions possible with the information we have.  

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

More and more often it’s not even about making more money - it’s about making money at all. In a digital world where employers never see an applicant if they can’t check the degree box - it’s no job or any job scenarios for employment.  That’s the literal reason my husband is in college right now while working. Repeatedly seeing people less qualified get jobs he would be great for bc they have any degree at all.  We can disagree with that all we want but that disagreement for decades has not changed the job market.

And how does your stance fit in with the mantra low income people constantly hear that if they don’t like their work conditions or income they should go to school to improve their options? I have always thought that was bs for many reasons but it is the most common refrain they hear.

And keep in mind the exact same financial aid forms used for colleges are used for trades too.  Trades are often not faster and can be surprisingly expensive to people with this stance. With just as many graduates ending up in low pay situations. 

If it is the difference in making $0 (personally I know many people without a college degree who make money and I know many employers who hire people without a college degree, so I find it hard to believe that is really the option) and making a positive amount, then the decision is still whether paying for a college degree is an investment--if it will result in more income (a positive number) than zero and if that difference is enough to pay for the education.

There is no reason for my stance to fit in with some mantra that you say is most common for people to hear if I am not the one saying it.  

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

These are even more reasons why I don't think it is a good idea for the government to pay for this.  If there is not a return on investment, if the individual can't predict what will be a job that is productive, and doesn't even know what they will do for a career, then it isn't "investment" if it is government money just like it isn't if it is the individual's money.  In fact, making it free intensifies the problem because the individual is not encouraged as much to consider those things; yes, life is unpredictable, but we don't just ignore planning and making the wisest decisions possible with the information we have.  

Well, many consider an educated populace to be a sound investment in general. 

Also, people often ARE were making the best decisions they could with the information they had. They just didn't have the right information. 

[SKL]

So everyone knows, if we go to government-financed education, the government will be deciding who gets to study what, when, and where, like it does in other countries.

And guess who's going to be able to qualify for the best programs?  Mostly the families that have the money for enrichment courses / tutoring / test prep prior to college.  Just like in those other countries.

Meanwhile, the high tax rates needed to support state-financed education will be paid mostly by people who still won't have the ability to send their own kids to higher education.  The working class supporting the upper classes' aspirations, yay! This is what many of you are advocating.  Be careful what you ask for.

Edited April 1, 2022 by SKL

[Soror]

It's a false dichotomy to say the options are taking on so much debt one can't paying it back or not being able to earn a living wage. Likely you will end up with college debt these days but there are ways to lessen it- you might need to pick a school that you don't love, pick 2nd or 3rd choice in majors, live at home, but there are for *most* people a lot of options between taking on so much debt you need the govt to forgive it and making a living at all. Going forward we need to get a handle on rising college costs- absolutely- it is ridiculous. But until then I'm advising my own kids about compromising-- looking at final costs for degree, estimated salaries, outlook for that field, cost comparisons to the nth degree. Some weren't educated in the past and some colleges and financiers were very dirty--- there was way too much talk about how get a degree and you'll make a good living--- without looking at the actual numbers. It doesn't fix things if we still believe that because it isn't true.

Tech college here is free through a state program with very minimal requirements (no FAFSA required). Living expenses and extra fees would at most be 15-$20k being generous here. Graduation rates are 70%+, placement rates in the 90%+, and salaries more than a lot of 4 yr degrees. Some of those don't have good longevity (like the ones my son was looking at), others do. The local CC also has some 2 yr programs with good prospects-(nursing, OTA, ultrasound techs-- I don't remember what else-)-- even if you don't get it free (which everyone that goes to PS should) it is $5k a year. My CC also has several 4 yr programs through other colleges that you can do- making costs for that under $50k pretty easily.

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

So everyone knows, if we go to government-financed education, the government will be deciding who gets to study what, when, and where, like it does in other countries.

And guess who's going to be able to qualify for the best programs?  Mostly the families that have the money for enrichment courses / tutoring / test prep prior to college.  Just like in those other countries.

Meanwhile, the high tax rates needed to support state-financed education will be paid mostly by people who still won't have the ability to send their own kids to higher education.  The working class supporting the upper classes' aspirations, yay! This is what many of you are advocating.  Be careful what you ask for.

Some places/states already HAVE free college for 2 yrs. This stuff has not happened in those places, so not sure why you are positive it would happen if it was 4 yrs instead of 2. 

(and I'm okay with free two years, and REASONABLE ways to finish up a 4 year degree after that will little debt.)

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Some places/states already HAVE free college for 2 yrs. This stuff has not happened in those places, so not sure why you are positive it would happen if it was 4 yrs instead of 2. 

(and I'm okay with free two years, and REASONABLE ways to finish up a 4 year degree after that will little debt.)

Right. Other countries fund four year educations, and do not tell grown adults that they must go into x, y, z field. Not sure why people assume it has to be that way here. It is entirely possible to change the way we fund education without dictating careers.

[Bootsie]

Just now, ktgrok said:

Some places/states already HAVE free college for 2 yrs. This stuff has not happened in those places, so not sure why you are positive it would happen if it was 4 yrs instead of 2. 

(and I'm okay with free two years, and REASONABLE ways to finish up a 4 year degree after that will little debt.)

I do not see how it is logical that the stuff you describe happens if the person making the decision to go to school and use resources is the one who has to pay for it but doesn't happen if the person can make choices without bearing the cost of those choices.  Why do you think these things happen in states that do not have 2 free years of college but don't happen in states that have free college?  Is there any evidence to point to that?  I have not seen any evidence that educational/productivity outcomes are better in states that have free college than in those that do not.  

Basic economic theory teaches that people are more careful about their decisions when they bear the costs of their decision than when a third-party bears the cost of their decisions.  This is the same idea regarding pollution; when a company can benefit from dumping pollutants in the air and society pays the cost for their productivity they are not careful with the resource.  If the company has to pay to use the resource of the air (and internalize the cost rather than make someone else pay) then the company is much more judicious about the use of the air.  

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Soror said:

It's a false dichotomy to say the options are taking on so much debt one can't paying it back or not being able to earn a living wage. Likely you will end up with college debt these days but there are ways to lessen it- you might need to pick a school that you don't love, pick 2nd or 3rd choice in majors, live at home, but there are for *most* people a lot of options between taking on so much debt you need the govt to forgive it and making a living at all. Going forward we need to get a handle on rising college costs- absolutely- it is ridiculous. But until then I'm advising my own kids about compromising-- looking at final costs for degree, estimated salaries, outlook for that field, cost comparisons to the nth degree. Some weren't educated in the past and some colleges and financiers were very dirty--- there was way too much talk about how get a degree and you'll make a good living--- without looking at the actual numbers. It doesn't fix things if we still believe that because it isn't true.

Tech college here is free through a state program with very minimal requirements (no FAFSA required). Living expenses and extra fees would at most be 15-$20k being generous here. Graduation rates are 70%+, placement rates in the 90%+, and salaries more than a lot of 4 yr degrees. Some of those don't have good longevity (like the ones my son was looking at), others do. The local CC also has some 2 yr programs with good prospects-(nursing, OTA, ultrasound techs-- I don't remember what else-)-- even if you don't get it free (which everyone that goes to PS should) it is $5k a year. My CC also has several 4 yr programs through other colleges that you can do- making costs for that under $50k pretty easily.

First bolded section - yes, we should be educating our kids on this, and yes, as you say, the issue is that many were NOT educated on this stuff. Also, many kids STILL won't be educated on this stuff, because there is no one to teach them this stuff. So, what do we do about that? Screw the kids that had no one to teach them that, or had people purposely telling them the wrong things for financial gain? that's what debt forgiveness is about. And what about kids NOW, that don't have anyone to teach them these things? Who say, dropped out and are trying to get back to school, and are getting ads for for profit schools, being promised the sky by adults who seem to know what they are talking about?

That said, the second bolded part is awesome, but unfortunately NOT the case in many many places. And it seems the people that need the programs the most are often the ones living in places with the worst systems. 

We actually have pretty good systems here - and my kids that are school aged have scholarships set up for kids iwht special needs, where the amount they don't use in K-12 will roll over to be used for post secondary education and that can be trade schools, colleges, even job coaches. So we are careful with that money, and don't bother to get reimbursed for stuff we can afford now ourselves like paper/notebooks/independent reading/etc to leave more in there for college (assuming program doesn't get canceled). And we have a state scholarship that pays 50-75-100 percent of tuition if you meet certain grade guidelines (or test scores) and volunteer a set number of hours. My oldest has that as well. And of course, I paid off my loans - again had a version of that same scholarship, my parents helped, and college was WAY cheaper. And yup, drove a beater car with no AC in Florida summers. 

We are also lucky that DH's degree did work out, and after years of DH working two jobs, scrimping (more beater cars with no AC in Florida summers - pretty sure DH's truck still doesn't have fully functional AC but with him working from home now mostly we don't drive it much), one of our kids not having an actual bedroom, boys and girls sharing a small bedroom, never ever ever paying for a vacation in over a decade of marriage, no cable, almost never eating out, and paying the income based payments, we were able to, after a decade, get into a house that fits us. Maybe some judge us for not paying extra and just staying in the small house, but at this point we've more than paid off the original principal, the college itself has closed due to lawsuits, and the bank that pressured him into the shady loans got their money back plus a good chunk of interest, so we felt okay morally continuing to make the same minimum payments and get a house our family could enjoy, and that would have a home office so he can explore consulting and making more with less hours than his current second job. 

I don't think that equate to "partying" or being a "grasshopper". But it does mean we can do okay, and keep paying, until my husband dies and it is finally discharged. So for our family, none of this is do or die. But I still think it is important, as not all have the advantages we do.

it is also not good for the economy when people know that if they work harder, get a second job, it just means their loan payment goes up too (since it is income based). 

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Right. Other countries fund four year educations, and do not tell grown adults that they must go into x, y, z field. Not sure why people assume it has to be that way here. It is entirely possible to change the way we fund education without dictating careers.

But we have many people in college in the US that would not be in college in those countries. And we have many people who would not remain in the colleges in those countries for very long.  Although it might not be the student's financial responsibility for college, it is the student's responsibility to succeed.  I also think there is a different approach to funding the educational system.  I think universities are funded and then students can go to the university and receive a degree that is offered (if there is a place available in certain fields).  

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But we have many people in college in the US that would not be in college in those countries. And we have many people who would not remain in the colleges in those countries for very long.  Although it might not be the student's financial responsibility for college, it is the student's responsibility to succeed.  I also think there is a different approach to funding the educational system.  I think universities are funded and then students can go to the university and receive a degree that is offered (if there is a place available in certain fields).  

Again instead of looking at other countries (where the entire system, starting in preschool, is different) I think it makes more sense to look at places where they have made 2 yr degrees debt free, right here in the US. Expand on that. 

Even if they drop out, they got more education than they had when they started. 

[Idalou]

Someone mentioned income based repayment in post yesterday

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1089750113/student-loan-debt-investigation

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

Again instead of looking at other countries (where the entire system, starting in preschool, is different) I think it makes more sense to look at places where they have made 2 yr degrees debt free, right here in the US. Expand on that. 

Even if they drop out, they got more education than they had when they started. 

What is a place in the US that you can point to as evidence that providing 2 years debt free has better outcomes than having those students have a financial interest/responsibility in their educational decisions?  

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Right. Other countries fund four year educations, and do not tell grown adults that they must go into x, y, z field. Not sure why people assume it has to be that way here. It is entirely possible to change the way we fund education without dictating careers.

These other countries have very, very different educational systems than the US. Students are tracked from a young age and generally only those able to independently and successfully handle college at 18 can attend. You generally don’t have all of the support services available here. And you can’t just choose your major, you have to qualify. When my son lived in Germany, he never got used to how impressed almost every person he met was with the fact that he was a chemistry major. It is completely different than the almost infinitive second chances and wide array of choices available here in the US.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, skimomma said:

 

If there is no way to tease out the people who could have paid or still could pay their debts without hardship, that is a collateral damage we may have to accept in order to help the people who are truly unable to get a handle on their debt.  Just as we do for people who take advantage of other social programs.  

I can get on board with forgiving interest and probably even forgiving debt if payments at least equal to the loan amounts have already been made. But even as a lifelong Democrat, I just can’t see blanket forgiveness of all student loan debt. And personally, I think issues with our social programs is one of the main reasons we will never have a solid safety net in this country.

I have no problems with two years debt free for CC or state schools for those who qualify. My state has a CC program that pays whatever federal aid doesn’t cover and has a fairly low bar for entry. I’m not sure non-traditional students qualify though, which is likely an issue.

[Faith-manor]

22 minutes ago, Frances said:

These other countries have very, very different educational systems than the US. Students are tracked from a young age and generally only those able to independently and successfully handle college at 18 can attend. You generally don’t have all of the support services available here. And you can’t just choose your major, you have to qualify. When my son lived in Germany, he never got used to how impressed almost every person he met was with the fact that he was a chemistry major. It is completely different than the almost infinitive second chances and wide array of choices available here in the US.

But that doesn't mean we can't try to do better here. Yes, totally overhaul the education system. AND also make college affordable or paid for through tax dollars or more heavily subsidized and regulated. The answer isn't the usual American reaction to change, "We can't do that here." We keep doing that. I do agree that qualifying foe the major is very important. Maybe we should have a tracked style system. Maybe that is worthy of discourse and debate.

The thing about a chemistry degree is that your son had to qualify. John Doe who can't solve a set of linear equations doesn't get to major in chemistry here either. Just because you write it down on the application and want it, doesn't mean it is an option. There are thresholds for majors, and weeder classes to eliminate those that aren't qualified. My son is in electrical engineering, there are benchmarks. Many people who wanted to major in it did not get admitted to the program though they were admitted to the insitution. My niece in law wants to have a BSN, but she didn't pay attention in school, didn't learn her math and science, didn't get the baseline SAT score for admission, and can't pass the entrance exams for CC to enter even the ADN program. So she isn't going to get the major she wants. Could she pay for remedial coursework in order to qualify? Yes, but she is likely not going to make it through that, and no one is going to cave and let her major in it. My son was an English and Creative Writing major. There were benchmarks, and people who wanted to enter that major, and weren't accepted into it though they gained admission to the college but they did go on to successfully major in other things. Many, many majors have benchmarks and barriers to admission. Music requires auditions and thousands of hours of lessons and performance during childhood just to have a shot at an audition on even the most mediocre of college music programs. Art has benchmarks for admission to that major. Until Michigan got rid of the test of basic skills, there were thresholds for teachers, and if you didn't pass it, you couldn't be an education major.

We can look to others for ideas of what we might try here. What we have isn't working. And again, we do have to treat the causes and not just the symptoms. But something does need to happen because economists, labor experts, you name it have been saying for a long time that the nation is going to crash if we don't.

We need to fix k12. We also need to do something in the here and now, not just for the k'ers graduating in the decade to come.

[Frances]

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

But that doesn't mean we can't try to do better here. Yes, totally overhaul the education system. AND also make college affordable or paid for through tax dollars or more heavily subsidized and regulated. The answer isn't the usual American reaction to change, "We can't do that here." We keep doing that. I do agree that qualifying foe the major is very important. Maybe we should have a tracked style system. Maybe that is worthy of discourse and debate.

The thing about a chemistry degree is that your son had to qualify. John Doe who can't solve a set of linear equations doesn't get to major in chemistry here either. Just because you write it down on the application and want it, doesn't mean it is an option. There are thresholds for majors, and weeder classes to eliminate those that aren't qualified. My son is in electrical engineering, there are benchmarks. Many people who wanted to major in it did not get admitted to the program though they were admitted to the insitution. My niece in law wants to have a BSN, but she didn't pay attention in school, didn't learn her math and science, didn't get the baseline SAT score for admission, and can't pass the entrance exams for CC to enter even the ADN program. So she isn't going to get the major she wants. Could she pay for remedial coursework in order to qualify? Yes, but she is likely not going to make it through that, and no one is going to cave and let her major in it. My son was an English and Creative Writing major. There were benchmarks, and people who wanted to enter that major, and weren't accepted into it though they gained admission to the college but they did go on to successfully major in other things. Many, many majors have benchmarks and barriers to admission. Music requires auditions and thousands of hours of lessons and performance during childhood just to have a shot at an audition on even the most mediocre of college music programs. Art has benchmarks for admission to that major. Until Michigan got rid of the test of basic skills, there were thresholds for teachers, and if you didn't pass it, you couldn't be an education major.

We can look to others for ideas of what we might try here. What we have isn't working. And again, we do have to treat the causes and not just the symptoms. But something does need to happen because economists, labor experts, you name it have been saying for a long time that the nation is going to crash if we don't.

We need to fix k12. We also need to do something in the here and now, not just for the k'ers graduating in the decade to come.

As I said, I’m fine with the debt free two year CC program my state provides. I would like to see it made available to non-traditional students. And more help for those who successfully complete the two year programs and want to transfer to a state university is also fine by me. I also think we could learn from countries like Germany when it comes to more apprenticeships and more public/private partnered training programs. 

I’m just not on board with blanket student loan forgiveness or the government paying for whatever and wherever a student wants to attend. The government definitely needs to get a handle on the current student loan forgiveness programs and make sure they are being administered effectively and fairly without so much hassle and stress for the borrowers.
 

And personally, I’m not even sure why we allow federal student loans to be used for for-profit colleges.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Idalou said:

Someone mentioned income based repayment in post yesterday

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1089750113/student-loan-debt-investigation

For those that don't click to read it - out of 4.4 MILLION borrowers eligible for loan cancellation after 20 years of payments only 32 people - not 32 million, 32 people - actually had loans canceled. 

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

What is a place in the US that you can point to as evidence that providing 2 years debt free has better outcomes than having those students have a financial interest/responsibility in their educational decisions?  

Did I say that?

I said that those places were doing it without the things you said would happen - the government forcing them into certain fields, etc. And I can certainly say those students have less educational debt than those who took loans for it. Which was what I was talking about. 

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Given how many people graduated in a recession where they suddenly were making way less than expected (and are a lot of the people this effects), AND how quickly and often the economy and jobs in general change, that's a lot to be able to predict for say, a teenager deciding a major. 

And of course, that most teens don't know what they are doing to do for a career yet. 

And the most efficient way to find what they want to do is exposure in liberal arts.  Where else can they take a course in nearly any subject to find if they have an skill/interest in that area? Almost no where. 

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Well, many consider an educated populace to be a sound investment in general. 

Also, people often ARE were making the best decisions they could with the information they had. They just didn't have the right information. 

This. Also why do people keep saying they will make better decisions if it costs them? Debt free or not, they will always bear the cost of their decisions in what their job prospects are likely to be and what their skills bring to the work force. My daughter is a studio arts major and plans to go to graduate school. She is under zero delusion that this will make her wealthy. But it absolutely will expand her skills and networking and job prospects beyond minimum wage. And there’s no where else that someone can spend 24/7 developing their skills and learning from others in their field unless they snag a job in that field, which they can’t do without that education. And the cost for her school is extremely cheap comparatively. Which is why she didn’t have hot water in her campus apartment for an entire semester last year and why she has very limited opportunities in her field there. Which is why she is looking at a much more expensive school for her graduate program.  And even though she happens to have all her college bills covered, she still has to work to afford things like food and rent and a car and all the other things of life. And then there’s the cost of framing and materials and gallery exhibitions. None of which are covered by financial aid funds. 

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

What is a place in the US that you can point to as evidence that providing 2 years debt free has better outcomes than having those students have a financial interest/responsibility in their educational decisions?  

Oklahoma. Though the first 2 years “free” have a ton of ties to it so much that many decide to not take it. 40 hours of volunteer time for one. And it’s only gap funding. So it only covers what is left after financial aid is applied.  

But thousands more students are going and learning bc of these and similar programs. Given that 60% of high school graduates need remedial maths and English, so yes, even just a few passed classes by those thousands means a significantly more literate workforce.  And literacy is key to job opportunity and advancement.

It is not perfect but it is absolutely an improvement. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Murphy101

[SKL]

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

it is also not good for the economy when people know that if they work harder, get a second job, it just means their loan payment goes up too (since it is income based). 

If a higher loan payment means you pay the loan off sooner, then this is certainly not a disincentive.  Most people who understand how interest works would rather pay the principal down as quickly as possible.

Personally I paid the highest amount I could possibly pay until my loans were gone.  Thankfully there was no penalty for early payment of principal.

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

If a higher loan payment means you pay the loan off sooner, then this is certainly not a disincentive.  Most people who understand how interest works would rather pay the principal down as quickly as possible.

Personally I paid the highest amount I could possibly pay until my loans were gone.  Thankfully there was no penalty for early payment of principal.

If you know you are likely never going to pay it off, it can be. 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

If you know you are likely never going to pay it off, it can be. 

Most people don't have that situation upon finishing their education though.

[Frances]

55 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

And the most efficient way to find what they want to do is exposure in liberal arts.  Where else can they take a course in nearly any subject to find if they have an skill/interest in that area? Almost no where. 

I’m a big proponent of LACs and college liberal arts classes,but in general, I don’t think they are a very effective or efficient way for students to decide what they want to pursue for a career or course of study. Lots of the more marketable careers such as many tech, accounting, business, and healthcare fields wouldn’t even be represented in a liberal arts curriculum.

And countries that have basically free college for students aren’t in general having them try a bunch of things in college and then choose. They are being admitted for very specific programs after completing the necessary prerequisites in high school.

In my opinion, high school is the time to be exploring all sorts of different classes, both academic and CTE (career technical education), doing career exploration, job shadowing (such as at the program provided by my local hospital), etc.

I’m not saying we need to be like many countries and make students choose a career at a relatively young age and I’m all for encouraging students to take a variety of liberal arts classes, but I just don’t agree it’s the best way for students to figure out what they want to pursue for college and a career.

I’m struggling to even think of what liberal arts classes a student could take in college, but not high school. The only thing that readily comes to mind is philosophy (although my son did take a high school course), but that doesn’t lead to a major or career for very many people.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Frances

[Murphy101]

36 minutes ago, SKL said:

Most people don't have that situation upon finishing their education though.

I don’t think that is currently true.

[Frances]

16 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I don’t think that is currently true.

I think it is.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-how-student-loan-borrowing-has-risen-in-10-years

Yes, the average has increased. But $31k doesn’t seem like an amount to never be able to pay off, especially if someone doesn’t make interest only payments. Granted, I think the interest rates are ridiculous.