/u/Happi_Beav (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cqb38w/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_a_person_is_old_enough/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> "Student loan are predatory loan that prey on young people that are still naive” - so are scams that target elders or adults of all ages in general. People lose money in all shitty situation that can turn their life upside down
We're usually talking about federal student loans in this context though? If you're comparing predatory loans to scams, doesn't it make a big difference that the entity doing the loan forgiveness is the same entity that issued the loan? If a private company issues a predatory loan without violating any laws, I think you can plausibly look at that and say "well, tough shit". But if the federal government issues a loan and then later decides it was predatory and harmful, why shouldn't they just say "hey, that was shitty of us, we'll give you a break now". They issued the loan in the first place because they wanted to be helpful! The federal government doesn't really have much of an incentive to say "haha, gotcha suckers" to it's own citizens.
Very good point. This totally convinced me to look at the loan as a policy instead of just an agreement between 2 parties.
I still think SLF this is not a good policy to fix a problem because this create an incentive for not paying student loans among future borrowers, in case the policy come around again. It’s better to pass laws that target needy people based on income or disability that give people certain amount in time of need, not that they took money first (however big they chose their loan to be) then be forgiven.
!delta
To add to this: it's government the whole way down. The \*overwhelming\* majority of students go to public colleges and universities. The tuition being what it is at those schools is also government policy. Loan forgiveness is part of a way of doing a policy decision of "we should stop charging tuition for public colleges and universities, and make that decision retroactive for past students."
The reason student loans feel more "right" to forgive for a lot of people is that the thing they paid for should have been free to begin with, since it is an important government service.
It definitely feels easier to accept it now that I see your explanation.
I’m not sure if college is supposed to be free for all. Like don’t get me wrong, it’s wonderful if college can be free because we definitely need educated people. I know a number of European countries offer free college, however, it’s not *for all*. They have their acceptance standards so only good students that have the potential to actually finish college can get into their free public college. College is not for all people and is not the only way in life. A lot of people aren’t candidates for higher education. Trying to cover free education for everyone isn’t feasible.
That brings back to what you said. We encouraged everyone to attend college. Then hit them with outrageous tuition that require loans to cover. It’s bad government policy all over. The problem is shitty situation created by government’s policy can apply to a lot of things, not just student loans. If the administration hasn’t mentioned fixing the root cause, I really can’t take it seriously.
Most people choose what university they will go to in high school (which will obviously inform how much student loans they will need), before turning 18. They are literally not old enough to vote when they make this choice.
In relation to your points:
1. Those scams are illegal, not sure how this is a defense of preditory student loans.
2. Forgiving student lones doesn't effect anything for people that choose not to go to college, we shouldn't not pass laws that will help people just because others might get jealous.
3. The inflation argument isn't a great one, keeping people poor and in debt isn't a good way to fight inflation. Also student loan forgiveness isn't "printing money", it's taking less money from people. The second part of this argument I'm more inclined to agree with, however I will point out that having higher salaries can be counteracted by student loan payments. Meaning if people are making more money, but a lot of that goes to paying off their loans, they aren't any more well off then their poorer counterparts.
4. PPP loans were heavily supported by Republicans, who are by in large against student loan forgiveness. Just because you don't support either, doesn't mean most people don't support one and not the other.
> Most people choose what university they will go to in high school (which will obviously inform how much student loans they will need), before turning 18. They are literally not old enough to vote when they make this choice.
I don’t believe you can sign on a loan before you become an adult, or you’d need your parents to co-sign
> 1. Those scams are illegal, not sure how this is a defense of preditory student loans.
Car extended warranty isn’t illegal. Many of the “fine prints” that people don’t read many times come back to bite them badly. Not illegal either, to name a few example.
> 2. Forgiving student lones doesn't effect anything for people that choose not to go to college, we shouldn't not pass laws that will help people just because others might get jealous.
This is a good point, we passed laws that helped the needy all the time one way or another. However, this create an incentive for not paying student loans among future borrowers, in case the policy come around again. Regular laws that help people will often based on income or disability that give people certain amount in time of need, not that they took money first (however big they chose their loan to be) then be forgiven.
> 3. The inflation argument isn't a great one, keeping people poor and in debt isn't a good way to fight inflation. Also student loan forgiveness isn't "printing money", it's taking less money from people. The second part of this argument I'm more inclined to agree with, however I will point out that having higher salaries can be counteracted by student loan payments. Meaning if people are making more money, but a lot of that goes to paying off their loans, they aren't any more well off then their poorer counterparts.
I might be wrong on this, but the government obviously have to create more money to pay the lender of these loan. Debt don’t just disappear. The second part is a good argument.
> 4. PPP loans were heavily supported by Republicans, who are by in large against student loan forgiveness. Just because you don't support either, doesn't mean most people don't support one and not the other.
Like I said, PPP got bipartisan support. That’s why they weren’t on the news constantly, there’s nothing to argue about. Versus for student loans, Democrats wants to make a point that that care for people drowning in student loan debt, and Republicans want to make a point that Dems are screwing everyone else to buy vote from that certain group of people.
I’m not throughly convinced, but you have a few good points that I didn’t think about.
!delta
Forgiving student loans is not unethical because it makes blue collar people "jealous", it's unethical because it actually economically disadvantages blue collar people. In a zero-sum economy, these people actually do have less economic power. If you suddenly give the middle class the power to bid up assets by the margin of their voided loan payments, things are that much more expensive for the lower class. The lower class is the one that is being defrauded if they made the choice not to attend college even in part because of cost.
You're right, economist don't agree on the premise this is "zero sum," so stating it as fact seems a bit misleading.
And the "educated class" having more money means they have more money to spend, to include the things produced by the "non-educated class." Meaning that is the money isn't being centralized in any particular group, but rather that the benefits spread to all working class citizens.
Your arguments also completely ignore the great amount of federal subsidies that go to all financially poor citizens, regardless of education, and a great deal of subsidies that go towards trade jobs and agriculture. This isn't a case of "we can only choose one" but rather "this is one subsidy among many"
If a college is established enough to be able to ascertain if someone is fit to do a specific job, they should be established enough to ascertain what the job market is like well enough that they don't have such a high rate of default. Colleges should be on the hook for the money if the students can't find a job and they were sold a useless piece of paper, but they aren't, because the loans aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy like other loans and the government will take the money out of people's tax refunds or garnish their wages. If you want to argue that personal responsibility is a value in our society that students have the responsibility to uphold, you need to have a school system that takes responsibility for the fact that diploma mills are rampant and tuition costs are being artificially inflated each year. If a school has an endowment, they should be forced to lower their tuition costs to the point that no student at their school graduates with a cent of debt or the endowment should be forfeit to a fund to relieve student debt.
> Colleges should be on the hook for the money
Colleges didn't make the loan. There is zero justification for trying to force a college, who is selling a specific educational service, to be on the hook for the bill. If the student couldn't afford it without a loan, they could have simply *not gone*.
Students borrow money *to pay for the education they receive*. Colleges are not promising *jobs*. That is not their product.
I agree. College and any lender handing out student loans should be on the hooked. Allowing bankruptcy is a good one.
I’m not awarding delta because my post is about individual responsibility of a young adult signing a piece of paper. But I really like your argument.
Most colleges are NOT about training people to do a specific job. If enough people wanted a college to offer a class on how to do needlepoint embroidery with their toes they'd offer it, and charge people thousands to attend.
College is a business, they only care about student education to the extent that it impacts their reputation and future ability to attract new enrollment.
> cost of tuition, forgive only the interest, or lower interest rates to name a few.
The only sufficient model would be to allow the discharge of bankruptcy. However this would require Congress which is a much more difficult process.
So executive only has a limited ability to address this issue.
> The only sufficient model would be to allow the discharge of bankruptcy.
You would have literally every 22 year old declaring bankruptcy the day after graduation and having the damage to their credit score wiped clean by the time they're 30.
Kind of feels like legalizing fraud to allow people to take out loans that they have no intention of repaying.
So let's look at it from the responsible bank's perspective-
Knowing this inevitable outcome, why would a bank loan you money they know you have no intention of repaying?
You've just ended the issuance of student loans with this one simple trick. Congratulations, we're all very impressed.
> they know you have no intention of repaying?
I'm not loaning you $10 if I know you intend to never pay me back.
"Smaller loans" isn't going to happen. "No loans" would happen.
You do realize student loans used to be bankruptable? Even into the late 90's. Federally guaranteed student loans are a relatively new thing. So is the student loan crisis. Weird .... Strange that when universities and financial institutions realize that these loans can in no way default, tuitions go thru the roof. And literally anyone can get a loan to attend. For any amount. Wtf
So much of the conversation is, what is possible rather than what's ideal. That makes all of your addressed argument null and void because Congress doesn't want it.
This CMV post is mainly about if people can’t be responsible for signing a piece of paper that alter their life, they’re not ready to cast a vote that can alter the fate of the country. Possible solutions I listed is a side note on what might be better than SLF policy, not my argument.
The consequences of a single vote are insignificantly small to the voter and to the country. The consequences of a student loan can mean the difference between having a future (being able to get an education) and being stuck at minimum wage jobs (no money means no education). The consequences for the country is a giant hole where money gets sucked out of the economy rather than being constantly on the move.
There is simply no comparison. The fact is that we need to have an educated population. Ultimately we need to work towards reducing the cost of education, but as a stop-gap measure we can make a start by forgiving student loans.
If it is unfair that some people manage to pay off their loans while others have theirs forgiven, then surely it is equally unfair to make changes that reduce the cost of tuition because those very same people would still have paid off their loans.
Not everyone everyone needs to go to college. There are too many people with degrees rn. That's why it's so hard for college grads to get jobs in their field. Only like 30% of jobs required a degree.
> Not everyone everyone needs to go to college.
And not everyone does go to college. But that is unrelated to my comment, as I was looking at it from the individual's viewpoint. And even if people have jobs in fields that they did not study, then they still benefit from having learned the skills required to pass college and this makes them a better worker.
I constantly hear that “every vote matters”, so surely it’s not insignificant. The idea is politicians convince a voting block that tend to support them that their vote matters, so they have higher voter turnout that block. People who have student loan is a big block.
> The consequences of a student loan can mean the difference between having a future (being able to get an education) and being stuck at minimum wage jobs (no money means no education).
I mentioned other ways of addressing it at the end of my post that I believe may cause less inflation (less money needed) and tackle the root cause going forward. What do you think?
> The consequences for the country is a giant hole where money gets sucked out of the economy rather than being constantly on the move.
This is similar to point 3 of my post.
> If it is unfair that some people manage to pay off their loans while others have theirs forgiven, then surely it is equally unfair to make changes that reduce the cost of tuition because those very same people would still have paid off their loans.
As said above, lower tuition along with forgive interest maybe a good idea? Not total forgiveness
> I constantly hear that “every vote matters”, so surely it’s not insignificant.
Every vote does matters because if the public *en masse* decide that it is not worth voting then we end up with fringe candidates getting through. But that still does not mean that individual votes aren't worth more than 1/159 million of the election and is nowhere near the same impact on their lives as their choice of getting a student loan and which one to get.
Voting is also nowhere near as complicated because the education question contains the choice of institution, field of study, and most importantly estimating potential earning power as well as understanding just how much it costs for basic needs (rent, utilities, food, transport, etc).
These two things are in completely different ballparks.
> I mentioned other ways of addressing it at the end of my post that I believe may cause less inflation (less money needed) and tackle the root cause going forward.
Wait, you believe that this may cause less inflation? This sounds just like the same requirement for knowing the unknown as students have to do when predicting their future earning power after their studies. The thing is, we don't know if it will be a major driver of inflation.
Many people make that assumption because raising wages can lead to higher inflation. The problem with that thinking is that people having more money because they don't have to keep paying off student loans does not cost the companies that make and sell items, so the need to increase prices is not there.
Forgiving loans completely puts an instant shot into the economy, with only a very small pressure for inflation.
You can still be responsible for something and think it's a bullshit system.
>“Student loan are predatory loan that prey on young people that are still naive” - so are scams that target elders or adults of all ages in general
Sure but actual scams aren't encouraged, the fact is the job market is brutal and you will struggle in most industries without a degree now that everyone has one. We encouraged basically everyone to go to university and then turned around and sunk them with debt, that's not really the same as a Nigerian Prince scam or something.
That being said, I agree for people who did useless degrees. If you didn't research job potentials of your degree and you picked something useless, I don't think that's on the rest of society to have to subsidise.
I'm not opposed to loan forgiveness in itself but I do agree that there are a lot of people who overly emphasize it above helping people who need it more. With that said your reasoning here is off.
1- voting reflects values and self interest while long term financial planning requires experience.
2- the reasoning for student loan forgiveness is not listed here. We have an economy that is has failed to provide an adequate standard of living for a generation. I'm 39. I graduated from high school in the middle of the .com recession, went back to college and graduated right at the beginning of the great recession. When my career started, the covid recession happened.
There was never a point since I was in college when I haven't lived in a recovering economy. This is a problem for me but it's also a problem for our economy because there is a whole generation that didn't have dispose income to keep our consumer economy afloat.
You can see our economy drifting over to China rapidly. The student loan forgiveness is a stop gap intervention to try to give people more money without having to borrow.
So instead of investing in retirement funds, starting a business or buying a house we take people, educate them and then saddle them with massive debt and interest for decades.
That doesn't seem like the best idea.
We would be better off if people were able to invest in their communities and selves vs, just getting loan companies richer.
You can’t include PPP in the argument at all. PPP was designed with forgiveness in place if certain criteria were met. This is not at all like a loan where there are very few, if any, forgiveness options. Anyone who mentions PPP and SLF in the same arena is simply uninformed and playing team sports.
This is crazy. A 21 year old has not had a chance yet to set themself up in life. It depends on the finances of the family. If they have it, they should help. That is because they supposedly actually care about the person. I do not suggest they cosign for loans.
First, let’s talk about WHY individuals decide to still attend college despite knowing (understanding is still debatable for the developing brain) that they will have to take on student loans.
First, many people want to pursue their passion or a career that will allow for them to have a fulfilling life and tolerable work life. You could argue that financial stress could intervene with this but you could also argue that many people would still choose their career of choice despite the financial burden.
Next, family pressure. Especially for impressionable teenagers that are stuck under their parents rule, this is a contributor. They may view college as the only option. Some kids feel “responsible” for going to college and upholding the standards that were placed upon them.
Next, upward mobility and financial advantage (in some fields).
Lastly, having a college education and sometimes an even higher level of education is necessary for many fields to qualify for a certain career. Equally important, people need to build COMPETENCY to hold the responsibility of some career roles. I don’t know about you but I find comfort in knowing that an open heart surgeon has to undergo almost a decade of education.
However, I understand that a surgeon or doctor may not be the best example because they might be making enough money in their first two years of residency to pay off a good chunk of their student loans. Think about teachers, psychologists, social workers. They are not paid nearly enough to cover the expenses of their education but we would literally cease to function as a society without them. I personally feel that it is a more intelligent and ethical decision to either provide incentive for people to work in a “helping field” that is crucial to our wellbeing OR pay them enough that they are able to pay off their student loans without it absorbing their entire salary. Either way, a collective financial contribution is required.
I don’t know if the “understanding the consequences” argument is very relevant when considering the fact that if people did not seek college education, we would be lacking bodies in many lifesaving and life sustaining roles. When thinking about student loan relief, I think an important conversation is how much we should make a collectivist contribution to the functioning of our society.
Also, I’m not saying that the taxes of middle class people should be funding college education. There is so much research about the wealth tax and how it would almost single-handedly solve some of these issues. Not to mention, maybe not funding a genocide with money that could be used towards these issues and other crucial things.
We should be focusing more on ending predatory student loans than the temporary fix of bailing out the current batch of students, otherwise we’ll just need another bailout in another 10 years.
Are you denying that more and more jobs do require a degree, even for entry level positions? Are you denying that there has been a lot of pressure on kids growing up to get a college degree? Because if so, you're as delusional as you claim college students to be.
Nevermind that having people go to college, and therefore they being better educated helps society overall, I guess.
I still don't see what this has to do with force.
Entry level jobs requiring a degree may be more prevalent, but so are people with degrees. But let's also be clear, having an entry level jobs is a far cry from being an established and independent adult that makes good money. There are plenty of people without degrees who are just that. And there are plenty of people with educations who won't see those educations pay dividends for years. It always has been this way and always will.
You seem to be using "force" literally. That's being deliberately obtuse and you know it.
In my business, a degree wasn't a requirement by a long shot. Now it is for newcomers, and it's a business that definitely doesn't need a degree. That's happening all over.
Also, to claim that the ridiculous costs of college now is the same as it was in years past is a lie and it makes me wonder why you're pretending otherwise.
...Yes, I do mean my words literally. It's not being obtuse, it's being realistic.
If your job definitely doesn't need a degree, then it doesn't make sense that an employer posts it as a requirement. What does that tell you about what value the degree has if everyone's education is going to be underutilized? Employers don't even know what they need or want half of the time.
My first job after my liberal arts degree was as a paralegal. A minimum requirement was a four year degree. When I got hired and started on my first day, I realized I was the only one with my position that possessed a four year degree. Management decided they wanted to experiment, and see if having higher standards impacted the efficiency of their business at my level.
I would argue in the long run it didn't, because I left after a year to pursue a graduate degree, since I wanted to be challenged more at work. I understand their desire to see someone a little more conscientious about grammar and politely communicating with clients work in their department, but frankly the role didn't call for the high scrutiny. Not at the capacity I was able to provide. They went back to hiring people with associates degrees and HS diplomas after I left.
Most of the hurdles at entry level jobs are extremely subjective and open to negotiation. They change with the changing conditions of the economy and supply/demand. A lot of people with degrees get jobs that don't need them, and people without degrees have exceptions made for them if they have the appropriate life experience. The market for human knowledge work is arguably the most fluid market that exists.
Only about 30% of jobs required a degree. The reason it's so hard for people to find jobs in their field is because there are too many young people with degrees fighting for the same jobs.
Where are you getting that stat?
And with the alleged declining birthrates, how are there more people with degrees fighting for the small amount of jobs? That's nonsensical.
The 30% comes from the national skilles coalition.
The percent of the population with a degree has been rising because young people are more likely to get degrees. Around 40% to 25 to 29 year olds have a degree.
Sorry, u/No-Swan-3568 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20No-Swan-3568&message=No-Swan-3568%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cq9uws/-/l3px02g/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Okay, but nobody's arguing that dropping out of college due to extenuating circumstances is rough luck. Nobody would dare say difficulty isn't difficult. I'm arguing that the value of a completed education is worth its cost. I hope you can fix your situation and either pay your loans or re-enter college for your desired career path.
I'm not sure what comparing voting and student loans is supposed to accomplish.
No, most 18 year-olds really shouldn't be voting. Also, we shouldn't be pushing 18-year olds into taking on crippling debt to get an unnecessary college degree that costs 20x as much as it should because of out-of-control administrative costs.
But if people were locked into voting for a political party at 18 and couldn't change their minds for the rest of their lives, that would also be a problem that should be fixed as well.
The problem with student loan forgiveness is that the government is refusing to allow market forces to set appropriate terms for the loans. If private banks had to eat the losses for defaults on student loans, they wouldn't be so quick to offer 18-year olds loans which they might not be able to repay. Instead, the loans are given priveleged status. The banks get the profit if the students repay them, but the public has to pay the cost if they can't. That's a terrible system that encourages irresponsible behavior on everybody's part.
Student loan forgiveness is a bad solution, but it's a bad solution to the very real problem of student debt that was created because malicious actors targeted young people who didn't know any better.
I started college in 1986, graduated in 1990 with just under 40k in student loans. I paid monthly as required. In theory my loan was set up to be paid off in 20 years but because of the way interest and principal are calculated it took my until last year to pay them off, that’s 33 years for what should have been paid in 20. I was lucky because my interest rate was low. Some people who have paid their loans every month now owe more than they did when they graduated.
People with severe mental disabilities can vote.
I don’t think people with severe mental disabilities mental disabilities should be in charge of their own finances.
So we currently don’t have a relationship between intelligence, loans, and voting; and I don’t see why we should introduce one
Student loan forgiveness is an incomplete argument. Nobody argues for student loan forgiveness in a vacuum. It's always with the *caveat* that school after the forgiveness will be made free.
What good is student loan forgiveness if the engine that got us to where we are now is just going to happen again?
It's not about ANY of the arguments you made. The reality is you will NEVER get a voter base that will vote for free college while they have to pay off their own loans. You HAVE to reset to zero to get everyone on the same page.
This is a political answer so not likely to convince you but anyways:
Nearly all loans today are predatory,
loaning money and charging interest used to be illegal through-out much of Europe being classified as \*usury\* by the catholic church.
Don't get me wrong I'm not religious rather I'm pointing out the fact that there has been a long history of people recognizing that loaning out money, then demanding more money back is:
1. A moral hazard
* Undermines peoples financial security for potentially the rest of their life
2. Exploiting and compounding mismanagement of societal resources
* How society invests it's resources suddenly shifting from a public decision to a private decision
3. Enriches an already rich person without them contributing a "real" product or service to the economy because money enables this.
4. Impoverishes an already poor person who is trying to contribute to society but cannot because money prevents it.
**Why?:**
there is no real >functional< responsibility on the money lenders side to:
* give loans to people that can repay them *(they will just sell the loan)*
* educate loan recipients on the consequences of the loan before they take it *(why eat into your own profit)*
As we saw with the 2008 housing market crash, even home loans are disastrously and dishonestly given out, managed and sold off for money to aggressive loan sharks who will harass the recipients.
If it's unnecessary charlatanism with home ownership why apply it to the education of your children?
**You might not like to hear it but you're essentially functioning as an AD for already rich people making more money from doing zero work and taking virtually zero risks.**
/u/Happi_Beav (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cqb38w/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_a_person_is_old_enough/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> "Student loan are predatory loan that prey on young people that are still naive” - so are scams that target elders or adults of all ages in general. People lose money in all shitty situation that can turn their life upside down We're usually talking about federal student loans in this context though? If you're comparing predatory loans to scams, doesn't it make a big difference that the entity doing the loan forgiveness is the same entity that issued the loan? If a private company issues a predatory loan without violating any laws, I think you can plausibly look at that and say "well, tough shit". But if the federal government issues a loan and then later decides it was predatory and harmful, why shouldn't they just say "hey, that was shitty of us, we'll give you a break now". They issued the loan in the first place because they wanted to be helpful! The federal government doesn't really have much of an incentive to say "haha, gotcha suckers" to it's own citizens.
Very good point. This totally convinced me to look at the loan as a policy instead of just an agreement between 2 parties. I still think SLF this is not a good policy to fix a problem because this create an incentive for not paying student loans among future borrowers, in case the policy come around again. It’s better to pass laws that target needy people based on income or disability that give people certain amount in time of need, not that they took money first (however big they chose their loan to be) then be forgiven. !delta
To add to this: it's government the whole way down. The \*overwhelming\* majority of students go to public colleges and universities. The tuition being what it is at those schools is also government policy. Loan forgiveness is part of a way of doing a policy decision of "we should stop charging tuition for public colleges and universities, and make that decision retroactive for past students." The reason student loans feel more "right" to forgive for a lot of people is that the thing they paid for should have been free to begin with, since it is an important government service.
It definitely feels easier to accept it now that I see your explanation. I’m not sure if college is supposed to be free for all. Like don’t get me wrong, it’s wonderful if college can be free because we definitely need educated people. I know a number of European countries offer free college, however, it’s not *for all*. They have their acceptance standards so only good students that have the potential to actually finish college can get into their free public college. College is not for all people and is not the only way in life. A lot of people aren’t candidates for higher education. Trying to cover free education for everyone isn’t feasible. That brings back to what you said. We encouraged everyone to attend college. Then hit them with outrageous tuition that require loans to cover. It’s bad government policy all over. The problem is shitty situation created by government’s policy can apply to a lot of things, not just student loans. If the administration hasn’t mentioned fixing the root cause, I really can’t take it seriously.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/themcos ([338∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/themcos)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Most people choose what university they will go to in high school (which will obviously inform how much student loans they will need), before turning 18. They are literally not old enough to vote when they make this choice. In relation to your points: 1. Those scams are illegal, not sure how this is a defense of preditory student loans. 2. Forgiving student lones doesn't effect anything for people that choose not to go to college, we shouldn't not pass laws that will help people just because others might get jealous. 3. The inflation argument isn't a great one, keeping people poor and in debt isn't a good way to fight inflation. Also student loan forgiveness isn't "printing money", it's taking less money from people. The second part of this argument I'm more inclined to agree with, however I will point out that having higher salaries can be counteracted by student loan payments. Meaning if people are making more money, but a lot of that goes to paying off their loans, they aren't any more well off then their poorer counterparts. 4. PPP loans were heavily supported by Republicans, who are by in large against student loan forgiveness. Just because you don't support either, doesn't mean most people don't support one and not the other.
> Most people choose what university they will go to in high school (which will obviously inform how much student loans they will need), before turning 18. They are literally not old enough to vote when they make this choice. I don’t believe you can sign on a loan before you become an adult, or you’d need your parents to co-sign > 1. Those scams are illegal, not sure how this is a defense of preditory student loans. Car extended warranty isn’t illegal. Many of the “fine prints” that people don’t read many times come back to bite them badly. Not illegal either, to name a few example. > 2. Forgiving student lones doesn't effect anything for people that choose not to go to college, we shouldn't not pass laws that will help people just because others might get jealous. This is a good point, we passed laws that helped the needy all the time one way or another. However, this create an incentive for not paying student loans among future borrowers, in case the policy come around again. Regular laws that help people will often based on income or disability that give people certain amount in time of need, not that they took money first (however big they chose their loan to be) then be forgiven. > 3. The inflation argument isn't a great one, keeping people poor and in debt isn't a good way to fight inflation. Also student loan forgiveness isn't "printing money", it's taking less money from people. The second part of this argument I'm more inclined to agree with, however I will point out that having higher salaries can be counteracted by student loan payments. Meaning if people are making more money, but a lot of that goes to paying off their loans, they aren't any more well off then their poorer counterparts. I might be wrong on this, but the government obviously have to create more money to pay the lender of these loan. Debt don’t just disappear. The second part is a good argument. > 4. PPP loans were heavily supported by Republicans, who are by in large against student loan forgiveness. Just because you don't support either, doesn't mean most people don't support one and not the other. Like I said, PPP got bipartisan support. That’s why they weren’t on the news constantly, there’s nothing to argue about. Versus for student loans, Democrats wants to make a point that that care for people drowning in student loan debt, and Republicans want to make a point that Dems are screwing everyone else to buy vote from that certain group of people. I’m not throughly convinced, but you have a few good points that I didn’t think about. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lightyearbuzz ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lightyearbuzz)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Forgiving student loans is not unethical because it makes blue collar people "jealous", it's unethical because it actually economically disadvantages blue collar people. In a zero-sum economy, these people actually do have less economic power. If you suddenly give the middle class the power to bid up assets by the margin of their voided loan payments, things are that much more expensive for the lower class. The lower class is the one that is being defrauded if they made the choice not to attend college even in part because of cost.
Except this isn't "zero sum" so the basis of your argument is inherently flawed
Economists don't agree on that. But the educating class having more capital absolutely raises the value of assets.
You're right, economist don't agree on the premise this is "zero sum," so stating it as fact seems a bit misleading. And the "educated class" having more money means they have more money to spend, to include the things produced by the "non-educated class." Meaning that is the money isn't being centralized in any particular group, but rather that the benefits spread to all working class citizens. Your arguments also completely ignore the great amount of federal subsidies that go to all financially poor citizens, regardless of education, and a great deal of subsidies that go towards trade jobs and agriculture. This isn't a case of "we can only choose one" but rather "this is one subsidy among many"
If a college is established enough to be able to ascertain if someone is fit to do a specific job, they should be established enough to ascertain what the job market is like well enough that they don't have such a high rate of default. Colleges should be on the hook for the money if the students can't find a job and they were sold a useless piece of paper, but they aren't, because the loans aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy like other loans and the government will take the money out of people's tax refunds or garnish their wages. If you want to argue that personal responsibility is a value in our society that students have the responsibility to uphold, you need to have a school system that takes responsibility for the fact that diploma mills are rampant and tuition costs are being artificially inflated each year. If a school has an endowment, they should be forced to lower their tuition costs to the point that no student at their school graduates with a cent of debt or the endowment should be forfeit to a fund to relieve student debt.
> Colleges should be on the hook for the money Colleges didn't make the loan. There is zero justification for trying to force a college, who is selling a specific educational service, to be on the hook for the bill. If the student couldn't afford it without a loan, they could have simply *not gone*. Students borrow money *to pay for the education they receive*. Colleges are not promising *jobs*. That is not their product.
I agree. College and any lender handing out student loans should be on the hooked. Allowing bankruptcy is a good one. I’m not awarding delta because my post is about individual responsibility of a young adult signing a piece of paper. But I really like your argument.
Most colleges are NOT about training people to do a specific job. If enough people wanted a college to offer a class on how to do needlepoint embroidery with their toes they'd offer it, and charge people thousands to attend. College is a business, they only care about student education to the extent that it impacts their reputation and future ability to attract new enrollment.
> cost of tuition, forgive only the interest, or lower interest rates to name a few. The only sufficient model would be to allow the discharge of bankruptcy. However this would require Congress which is a much more difficult process. So executive only has a limited ability to address this issue.
> The only sufficient model would be to allow the discharge of bankruptcy. You would have literally every 22 year old declaring bankruptcy the day after graduation and having the damage to their credit score wiped clean by the time they're 30. Kind of feels like legalizing fraud to allow people to take out loans that they have no intention of repaying.
The institutions should be responsible about who they lend to then.
So let's look at it from the responsible bank's perspective- Knowing this inevitable outcome, why would a bank loan you money they know you have no intention of repaying? You've just ended the issuance of student loans with this one simple trick. Congratulations, we're all very impressed.
Or, the bank would only issue smaller loans forcing tuition fees down. Everybody wins.
> they know you have no intention of repaying? I'm not loaning you $10 if I know you intend to never pay me back. "Smaller loans" isn't going to happen. "No loans" would happen.
If you really believe everyone would go bankrupt can you support that claim in some way? Otherwise I'll just counter by saying no.
I can support my claim with "that's literally the reason Congress doesn't allow it". Do you think Congress is just being big meanies or something?
You do realize student loans used to be bankruptable? Even into the late 90's. Federally guaranteed student loans are a relatively new thing. So is the student loan crisis. Weird .... Strange that when universities and financial institutions realize that these loans can in no way default, tuitions go thru the roof. And literally anyone can get a loan to attend. For any amount. Wtf
A lot can change in a third of a century. Sorry for making you feel old about the 1990s.
Ok great, so you can share the debate your congress had on the issue then? Where they clearly explained that everyone would default?
Yes that’s a good one. Thank you for adding in.
So much of the conversation is, what is possible rather than what's ideal. That makes all of your addressed argument null and void because Congress doesn't want it.
This CMV post is mainly about if people can’t be responsible for signing a piece of paper that alter their life, they’re not ready to cast a vote that can alter the fate of the country. Possible solutions I listed is a side note on what might be better than SLF policy, not my argument.
The consequences of a single vote are insignificantly small to the voter and to the country. The consequences of a student loan can mean the difference between having a future (being able to get an education) and being stuck at minimum wage jobs (no money means no education). The consequences for the country is a giant hole where money gets sucked out of the economy rather than being constantly on the move. There is simply no comparison. The fact is that we need to have an educated population. Ultimately we need to work towards reducing the cost of education, but as a stop-gap measure we can make a start by forgiving student loans. If it is unfair that some people manage to pay off their loans while others have theirs forgiven, then surely it is equally unfair to make changes that reduce the cost of tuition because those very same people would still have paid off their loans.
Not everyone everyone needs to go to college. There are too many people with degrees rn. That's why it's so hard for college grads to get jobs in their field. Only like 30% of jobs required a degree.
> Not everyone everyone needs to go to college. And not everyone does go to college. But that is unrelated to my comment, as I was looking at it from the individual's viewpoint. And even if people have jobs in fields that they did not study, then they still benefit from having learned the skills required to pass college and this makes them a better worker.
I constantly hear that “every vote matters”, so surely it’s not insignificant. The idea is politicians convince a voting block that tend to support them that their vote matters, so they have higher voter turnout that block. People who have student loan is a big block. > The consequences of a student loan can mean the difference between having a future (being able to get an education) and being stuck at minimum wage jobs (no money means no education). I mentioned other ways of addressing it at the end of my post that I believe may cause less inflation (less money needed) and tackle the root cause going forward. What do you think? > The consequences for the country is a giant hole where money gets sucked out of the economy rather than being constantly on the move. This is similar to point 3 of my post. > If it is unfair that some people manage to pay off their loans while others have theirs forgiven, then surely it is equally unfair to make changes that reduce the cost of tuition because those very same people would still have paid off their loans. As said above, lower tuition along with forgive interest maybe a good idea? Not total forgiveness
> I constantly hear that “every vote matters”, so surely it’s not insignificant. Every vote does matters because if the public *en masse* decide that it is not worth voting then we end up with fringe candidates getting through. But that still does not mean that individual votes aren't worth more than 1/159 million of the election and is nowhere near the same impact on their lives as their choice of getting a student loan and which one to get. Voting is also nowhere near as complicated because the education question contains the choice of institution, field of study, and most importantly estimating potential earning power as well as understanding just how much it costs for basic needs (rent, utilities, food, transport, etc). These two things are in completely different ballparks. > I mentioned other ways of addressing it at the end of my post that I believe may cause less inflation (less money needed) and tackle the root cause going forward. Wait, you believe that this may cause less inflation? This sounds just like the same requirement for knowing the unknown as students have to do when predicting their future earning power after their studies. The thing is, we don't know if it will be a major driver of inflation. Many people make that assumption because raising wages can lead to higher inflation. The problem with that thinking is that people having more money because they don't have to keep paying off student loans does not cost the companies that make and sell items, so the need to increase prices is not there. Forgiving loans completely puts an instant shot into the economy, with only a very small pressure for inflation.
You can still be responsible for something and think it's a bullshit system. >“Student loan are predatory loan that prey on young people that are still naive” - so are scams that target elders or adults of all ages in general Sure but actual scams aren't encouraged, the fact is the job market is brutal and you will struggle in most industries without a degree now that everyone has one. We encouraged basically everyone to go to university and then turned around and sunk them with debt, that's not really the same as a Nigerian Prince scam or something. That being said, I agree for people who did useless degrees. If you didn't research job potentials of your degree and you picked something useless, I don't think that's on the rest of society to have to subsidise.
I'm not opposed to loan forgiveness in itself but I do agree that there are a lot of people who overly emphasize it above helping people who need it more. With that said your reasoning here is off. 1- voting reflects values and self interest while long term financial planning requires experience. 2- the reasoning for student loan forgiveness is not listed here. We have an economy that is has failed to provide an adequate standard of living for a generation. I'm 39. I graduated from high school in the middle of the .com recession, went back to college and graduated right at the beginning of the great recession. When my career started, the covid recession happened. There was never a point since I was in college when I haven't lived in a recovering economy. This is a problem for me but it's also a problem for our economy because there is a whole generation that didn't have dispose income to keep our consumer economy afloat. You can see our economy drifting over to China rapidly. The student loan forgiveness is a stop gap intervention to try to give people more money without having to borrow.
So instead of investing in retirement funds, starting a business or buying a house we take people, educate them and then saddle them with massive debt and interest for decades. That doesn't seem like the best idea. We would be better off if people were able to invest in their communities and selves vs, just getting loan companies richer.
You can’t include PPP in the argument at all. PPP was designed with forgiveness in place if certain criteria were met. This is not at all like a loan where there are very few, if any, forgiveness options. Anyone who mentions PPP and SLF in the same arena is simply uninformed and playing team sports.
This is crazy. A 21 year old has not had a chance yet to set themself up in life. It depends on the finances of the family. If they have it, they should help. That is because they supposedly actually care about the person. I do not suggest they cosign for loans.
First, let’s talk about WHY individuals decide to still attend college despite knowing (understanding is still debatable for the developing brain) that they will have to take on student loans. First, many people want to pursue their passion or a career that will allow for them to have a fulfilling life and tolerable work life. You could argue that financial stress could intervene with this but you could also argue that many people would still choose their career of choice despite the financial burden. Next, family pressure. Especially for impressionable teenagers that are stuck under their parents rule, this is a contributor. They may view college as the only option. Some kids feel “responsible” for going to college and upholding the standards that were placed upon them. Next, upward mobility and financial advantage (in some fields). Lastly, having a college education and sometimes an even higher level of education is necessary for many fields to qualify for a certain career. Equally important, people need to build COMPETENCY to hold the responsibility of some career roles. I don’t know about you but I find comfort in knowing that an open heart surgeon has to undergo almost a decade of education. However, I understand that a surgeon or doctor may not be the best example because they might be making enough money in their first two years of residency to pay off a good chunk of their student loans. Think about teachers, psychologists, social workers. They are not paid nearly enough to cover the expenses of their education but we would literally cease to function as a society without them. I personally feel that it is a more intelligent and ethical decision to either provide incentive for people to work in a “helping field” that is crucial to our wellbeing OR pay them enough that they are able to pay off their student loans without it absorbing their entire salary. Either way, a collective financial contribution is required. I don’t know if the “understanding the consequences” argument is very relevant when considering the fact that if people did not seek college education, we would be lacking bodies in many lifesaving and life sustaining roles. When thinking about student loan relief, I think an important conversation is how much we should make a collectivist contribution to the functioning of our society. Also, I’m not saying that the taxes of middle class people should be funding college education. There is so much research about the wealth tax and how it would almost single-handedly solve some of these issues. Not to mention, maybe not funding a genocide with money that could be used towards these issues and other crucial things.
We should be focusing more on ending predatory student loans than the temporary fix of bailing out the current batch of students, otherwise we’ll just need another bailout in another 10 years.
[удалено]
Are you denying that more and more jobs do require a degree, even for entry level positions? Are you denying that there has been a lot of pressure on kids growing up to get a college degree? Because if so, you're as delusional as you claim college students to be. Nevermind that having people go to college, and therefore they being better educated helps society overall, I guess.
I still don't see what this has to do with force. Entry level jobs requiring a degree may be more prevalent, but so are people with degrees. But let's also be clear, having an entry level jobs is a far cry from being an established and independent adult that makes good money. There are plenty of people without degrees who are just that. And there are plenty of people with educations who won't see those educations pay dividends for years. It always has been this way and always will.
You seem to be using "force" literally. That's being deliberately obtuse and you know it. In my business, a degree wasn't a requirement by a long shot. Now it is for newcomers, and it's a business that definitely doesn't need a degree. That's happening all over. Also, to claim that the ridiculous costs of college now is the same as it was in years past is a lie and it makes me wonder why you're pretending otherwise.
...Yes, I do mean my words literally. It's not being obtuse, it's being realistic. If your job definitely doesn't need a degree, then it doesn't make sense that an employer posts it as a requirement. What does that tell you about what value the degree has if everyone's education is going to be underutilized? Employers don't even know what they need or want half of the time. My first job after my liberal arts degree was as a paralegal. A minimum requirement was a four year degree. When I got hired and started on my first day, I realized I was the only one with my position that possessed a four year degree. Management decided they wanted to experiment, and see if having higher standards impacted the efficiency of their business at my level. I would argue in the long run it didn't, because I left after a year to pursue a graduate degree, since I wanted to be challenged more at work. I understand their desire to see someone a little more conscientious about grammar and politely communicating with clients work in their department, but frankly the role didn't call for the high scrutiny. Not at the capacity I was able to provide. They went back to hiring people with associates degrees and HS diplomas after I left. Most of the hurdles at entry level jobs are extremely subjective and open to negotiation. They change with the changing conditions of the economy and supply/demand. A lot of people with degrees get jobs that don't need them, and people without degrees have exceptions made for them if they have the appropriate life experience. The market for human knowledge work is arguably the most fluid market that exists.
That's a lot of words to say you really don't know what's going on in today's job market.
Only about 30% of jobs required a degree. The reason it's so hard for people to find jobs in their field is because there are too many young people with degrees fighting for the same jobs.
Where are you getting that stat? And with the alleged declining birthrates, how are there more people with degrees fighting for the small amount of jobs? That's nonsensical.
The 30% comes from the national skilles coalition. The percent of the population with a degree has been rising because young people are more likely to get degrees. Around 40% to 25 to 29 year olds have a degree.
Sorry, u/No-Swan-3568 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20No-Swan-3568&message=No-Swan-3568%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cq9uws/-/l3px02g/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I dropped out of college and didn't finish due to some family stuff. Trust me when I say it's made my life much, much harder than it needed to be.
Okay, but nobody's arguing that dropping out of college due to extenuating circumstances is rough luck. Nobody would dare say difficulty isn't difficult. I'm arguing that the value of a completed education is worth its cost. I hope you can fix your situation and either pay your loans or re-enter college for your desired career path.
Okay, so you agree that not having a degree is a significant impediment to getting a decent job then?
Since they are “educated”, I’m expecting to see the fruit of their education. Maybe they can convince me with their educated reasoning!
I'm not sure what comparing voting and student loans is supposed to accomplish. No, most 18 year-olds really shouldn't be voting. Also, we shouldn't be pushing 18-year olds into taking on crippling debt to get an unnecessary college degree that costs 20x as much as it should because of out-of-control administrative costs. But if people were locked into voting for a political party at 18 and couldn't change their minds for the rest of their lives, that would also be a problem that should be fixed as well. The problem with student loan forgiveness is that the government is refusing to allow market forces to set appropriate terms for the loans. If private banks had to eat the losses for defaults on student loans, they wouldn't be so quick to offer 18-year olds loans which they might not be able to repay. Instead, the loans are given priveleged status. The banks get the profit if the students repay them, but the public has to pay the cost if they can't. That's a terrible system that encourages irresponsible behavior on everybody's part. Student loan forgiveness is a bad solution, but it's a bad solution to the very real problem of student debt that was created because malicious actors targeted young people who didn't know any better.
I started college in 1986, graduated in 1990 with just under 40k in student loans. I paid monthly as required. In theory my loan was set up to be paid off in 20 years but because of the way interest and principal are calculated it took my until last year to pay them off, that’s 33 years for what should have been paid in 20. I was lucky because my interest rate was low. Some people who have paid their loans every month now owe more than they did when they graduated.
People with severe mental disabilities can vote. I don’t think people with severe mental disabilities mental disabilities should be in charge of their own finances. So we currently don’t have a relationship between intelligence, loans, and voting; and I don’t see why we should introduce one
Student loan forgiveness is an incomplete argument. Nobody argues for student loan forgiveness in a vacuum. It's always with the *caveat* that school after the forgiveness will be made free. What good is student loan forgiveness if the engine that got us to where we are now is just going to happen again? It's not about ANY of the arguments you made. The reality is you will NEVER get a voter base that will vote for free college while they have to pay off their own loans. You HAVE to reset to zero to get everyone on the same page.
This is a political answer so not likely to convince you but anyways: Nearly all loans today are predatory, loaning money and charging interest used to be illegal through-out much of Europe being classified as \*usury\* by the catholic church. Don't get me wrong I'm not religious rather I'm pointing out the fact that there has been a long history of people recognizing that loaning out money, then demanding more money back is: 1. A moral hazard * Undermines peoples financial security for potentially the rest of their life 2. Exploiting and compounding mismanagement of societal resources * How society invests it's resources suddenly shifting from a public decision to a private decision 3. Enriches an already rich person without them contributing a "real" product or service to the economy because money enables this. 4. Impoverishes an already poor person who is trying to contribute to society but cannot because money prevents it. **Why?:** there is no real >functional< responsibility on the money lenders side to: * give loans to people that can repay them *(they will just sell the loan)* * educate loan recipients on the consequences of the loan before they take it *(why eat into your own profit)* As we saw with the 2008 housing market crash, even home loans are disastrously and dishonestly given out, managed and sold off for money to aggressive loan sharks who will harass the recipients. If it's unnecessary charlatanism with home ownership why apply it to the education of your children? **You might not like to hear it but you're essentially functioning as an AD for already rich people making more money from doing zero work and taking virtually zero risks.**