Correct. I have posted this graph several times before. It shows how the state of Michigan has shifted the cost off of the state budget, and on to the students.
3 Likes
Maybe they did not screw up. Rather, the market changed and the demand for those jobs didn’t exist when they completed their education.
Apply the same rationale to people who want “tax cuts for the wealthy”. The wealthy do NOT create jobs (what a SHOCK, I know). Never mind bailouts for the TBTF–because they are NOT. Yet those bailouts happen again and again and again and again…
Next time “tax cut” requests come around, require the “tax cut” funding be allocated exclusively to reducing student debt. After all, they ARE the “Job Creators” of the future–right? Or wouldn’t it be appropriate to fund Apple or Microsoft when they were starting? Nice Catch-22 there…
6 Likes
Ok, when you start college, generally, you do not have to declare a major until the end of your sophomore year. So give me an example where, in three years, somebody who declares a major and follows through, that the major is no longer needed in the workplace. I have never seen that but if you have I would be interested in that because it would be a valid argument.
Yea Jerry I was against those also. But they were passed by a majority not by one person. If you can get something passed by a majority then I might not like it but at least I can go along with it. Also, whataboutism never was a really strong argument. If it can’t stand on it’s own merit, then maybe the reasoning is weak.
Andy
1 Like
No I get it, and maybe Steve this is best at the Federal level because a lot of states would not implement it dragging down the whole country.
Andy
Have a high school friend who went to Purdue. Forget the major but it was tailored to the defense industry. Graduation would have been like 1989 or so. You know, right around the time the Berlin Wall came down. Lots of people in defense related industries lost jobs, some never to get back into that industry. Texas Instruments either sold off or laid off the ENTIRE defense systems segment of the company at that time.
3 Likes
Wow I thought this was a respectable conversation but still people are flagging content. Oh well if I upset anyone I truly apologize that was not my intent. You were flagged to BJ but I did not see anything that should have triggered anyone.
Andy
3 Likes
Ok BJ so is he still using his degree or what did he do when he lost that job? I worked for Nortel and it went under but my education still allowed me to get a job using what I learned.
Andy
1 Like
A friend of mine got a degree in engineering, worked for Grumman, they laid him off, then Nortel for a few years, they laid him off. Then he decided, no more defense/government related jobs and joined me at Bell Labs instead. There’s no such thing as “defense related degrees”, they are called engineering degrees, and they can be used in both the defense/govt sector and in the private sector.
7 Likes
When a crusty old guy proposed free college, my first response was how could the Federal government do that, given that the universities are owned by the states, and the community colleges are owned by cities or counties? If the Feds gave out checks, to cover the cost at a state university, the states would simply increase the charges for attending. and turn their colleges into profit centers.
Of course, we are seeing the defunding trend in high schools. When I started high school, I had to buy my own text books and supplies. Around my senior year, a lawsuit was filed contending that free public education meant free, and won. So, in my last year, books were loaned and, pens, pencils, and notebook paper were issued to us.
That trend of “free” education has reversed. Not only are high school students required to buy their own supplies again, I looked in the Farmington Public course catalog for this year, and nearly every class has a fee. Schools started charging fees to play sports too, but now the sports fees are being eliminated, but it still costs $10-$15/semester, per class, for everything else. Driver’s ed costs $80.
There is a push in the state to fund the private schools where the “JCs” send their spawn at the same level as public schools. The $9k or so would not cover the full cost of a private school, but it would be “tuition assistance”, a subsidy for the rich. Of course, that would take more money away from the public schools.
At some point, the defunding of public schools, with private schools costing thousands more than the state-provided “tuition assistance”, will cross trendlines with the push to allow younger kids to work more hours at more types of jobs, and we will see a large portion of the population priced out of schools, with no more than “bantu education”, qualified for no more than menial work. Then the “JCs” can have another tax cut, because so much less is being spent on education.
5 Likes
I don’t think it should be “free for everyone”. I do think it should be widely accessible, but that is a different thing. And as I have pointed out, we have paid for mistakes in the past. We spent hundreds of billions to bail out banks (so the economy wouldn’t collapse.) We have billions in a SuperFund to take care of toxic waste dumps. We have billions in Unemployment Insurance to compensate for corporations needs to downsize (without wrecking people’s lives). A huge part of what government does is help correct problems of the past that have come to light in the present, Why is this different?
Ah, now I understand. You suffered, so others should too. With that philosophy there will never be Social Security, because some people didn’t have it, so why should others? There shouldn’t be MediCare, because my parents didn’t have it. There shouldn’t be …
As the meme says, “Imagine advocating a system where you have to risk getting shot if you want an education.” Nope, not gonna support that, even though it’s done well for some. I won’t be surprised to find that others have died trying.
To bring clarity:
-
The system is vastly different than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. Government used to defray substantial costs up front, and now doesn’t. This is a minor after-the-fact correction.
-
Jobs DO change. Going to school for a journalism degree seemed a good idea in the 90’s. Oops, a decade later those jobs are evaporating. (I’m not suggesting we try to remedy every mistake, just pointing out that things do change.)
-
The “return on money” is indirect to society, direct to the recipient. Your tax dollars paid to fund satellite technology, chip advancements, jet engine development, LED lighting. Think any of those have aided your life? All of them required education for some.
Who said “give nothing to those not educated yet”? I’m all in favor of subsidizing education - and significantly. I just believe we should also be turning out machinists, plumbers, electricians, as well as scientists and writers. If people chose not to take a loan, well bully for them, then they had 4 more years of earnings and jobs experience, so it’s not as though they suffered a total loss.
When we shower billions and billions on corporate executives, bankers, create tax giveaways for corporations to relocate, baseball stadia to be built, pour countless more into “saving” old line auto companies even as we subsidize the creation of new EV entrants, spend on ever more exotic weaponry for the Pentagon and rockets to Mars, why the enmity for a few billions for college debt? I don’t understand it, except for “I got mine, tough crap for you”
6 Likes
Therein lies the problem. One side DOES NOT CARE if something is deserving of merit or not. They will NEVER “cut off” the pseudo “Job Creators”.
4 Likes
If you do not think is should be “free for everyone” Why in the world would you be willing to pay for everyone afterwards then and sll of those are not the same. But like I said I really dislike whataboutism. It’s really intellectually weak to bring another subject into a discussion to try to bolster your argument. If it can not stand on it’s own then you really do not have any argument to make.
I do not play the victim card nor did I suffer. In fact I think I have had a wonderful life, even with all the bumps along the way. Paying for our loans was just a fact of life just like I paid for my automobile and house loans. Loans are only a burden if you borrow beyond your means. That comment was made to show that it isn’t impossible to pay off your loans. I was hoping to keep this from becoming a mud slinging contest but when you do not have an argument that holds water then attack the person right? 
When Medicare and Social Security were put in place they did not go back and tell everyone that were paying on their medical bills that they would pick up all the tabs from 20 years ago. Do you see the difference?
Of course times are different. We want them to be different right? Or do you want to go back to the 1960’s. Right now is one of the best times in American History to be alive.
Of course Jobs change, they are going to change even more and faster. That is why we need to set up a better way for schooling going forward. Anyone who has School loans 30,40 or 50 years ago should have already had them paid off.
Andy
3 Likes
To show another side of the coin. We have some friends that have been paying on their loans for over 20 years. They live in a gated community, he just bought a corvette, has numerous toys(Travel trailer, harley’s, etc. All of these are funded by credit. They do not ever pay anything off in a timely manner just paying as long as it takes so they can fund a life style they choose to have. Nothing wrong with that. But should other people have to also pay to fund that life style? That is the crux of the problem. There are many people out there that choose to live on credit and pay on time.
Andy
5 Likes
The “rules” that is why to go back and pick up a reasonable amount of the tab not the entire thing. When a rule is wrong we need to change it. If a man is wrongly convicted of murder and sent to prison we need to release him if we find out he is innocent. When a man borrows money from a loan shark we need to protect him as a society…etc…just abstract notions that the law is a arse.
The old subsidy ratio was 4 parts the state of CT and one part the family and/or student. This was pretty much universal state by state. There were exceptions that were even less expensive like in Texas or California.
The reason to forgive the money is to encourage a generation to spend, save and have children earlier. The alpha generation is way undersized. We can face demographic problems. Yet less uneducated, high school dropouts, are still having babies. We have all sorts of responsibilities here in our planning.
Why plan our society? Have you seen the $32 trillion in federal debt because we did not plan our society for 40 years? That is why.
You think that benefits you? Yes it certainly benefits you.
BTW those economies of scale in manufacturing I talk about also include greater competition between manufacturers of the same sorts of goods in the US and Mexico. In other words we need educated people in the next few generations to pump up our economy and keep inflation lower. We need the managers, the designers, the engineers, the better salespeople, etc etc…and on the other side of it the consumer and savers.
If you ended up in prison for a crime that should have held a much lighter sentence would you say you screwed up? What if you were just supposed to do a few years of community service? Your response is yes do some military time. That is good for some folks. Our society needs more “paths” than you can imagine. We are not limited to military service.
My biggest complaints about illegitimate leaders is the individual inability to cover all aspects or be all knowing and trying to run a country. We can not just have 'a path" to college. We need people with very different life experiences to make us whole and competitive.
Some times Silicon Valley celebrates the start up that fails as the ability to learn. No one simply screws up.
2 Likes
How did you bring up paying for someone else’s Harley as a reason?
Not sure I really want to know. But what would you say to anyone else doing that in a conversation? Are you out of ammo?
1 Like
You’ve said this a couple of times, but that is not the proposal. The proposed
payment is limited and will leave a lot of borrowers with some loan still remaining. It is not paying off everyone’s loans.
As to the benefit to the larger economy, the reduction in loan payments after the forgiveness would likely be used for additional spending, helping the economy to grow. That helps everyone.
—Peter
3 Likes
Leap I think you need to read the whole post. I stated they are paying on time while they
have many toys.
Andy
1 Like
How much would they still owe if not all was paid off? Who’s loan would not be paid off?
Right so if I am making payments on the loan and now my loan payments are reduced so I can take out more loans that is going to help the economy grow?
Great. The same people taking on more debt.
Andy
Isn’t this the problem? Some people can figure out how to handle debt and others can not. It reminds me of the 3 little pigs. One of the pigs always has to build with straw.
Andy
1 Like
My understanding is that the Feds would pay (or forgive) something like $10k or $20k of an individual’s student loans. If your loans are less than that, they’re gone. If they’re more, you still have to pay the rest.
Why would you assume that people would take out more loans? I suspect that most of the folks with loans they can’t repay are done with schooling. And if they aren’t able to repay their loans, they are by definition struggling financially. So cash flow freed up via ending or reducing loan payments is almost certainly going to be spent.
—Peter
2 Likes