25 years old and deep in debt

[Ideologue]

Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?

[Jacob]

So I would have to pay more because of other peoples bad choices. They wouldn't have to pay more for their bad choices, they just get to throw their hands up and say screw it. Unlike socialized medicine, for example, everyone pays in (so while, say smokers, might take out more, they still pay in, so the net difference is smaller and seems fairer).

So basically "more for me, less for other people, and fuck people who are in trouble"?

No thought given to what is best overall for society, for the economy, or other individuals?

Would you change your opinion on easing the student loans burden if it did not translate into higher taxes for yourself?

[Ideologue]

So?

Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees.  You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.

Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.

That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.

If corporate America needs basketweavers, it can train them.

Seriously, I don't understand your objection to the bolded part; it's actually a market solution.

[HVC]

Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?

Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.

[Jacob]

Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.

But the phenomenon of individuals destroying their financial future by getting a higher education is quite recent. We are not saving people from themselves, we're saving them from a system that's been set up to destroy them; moreover, it's a system that has only recently been constructed.

[Ideologue]

Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?

Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.

So, just to understand, banks should have no duty to establish the value of their investments?  Interesting thesis.

Why are people responsible for their actions and not banks?

[Jacob]

So, just to understand, banks should have no duty to establish the value of their investments?  Interesting thesis.

That's fine, as long as the investments aren't underwritten by the taxpayer.

[HVC]

So I would have to pay more because of other peoples bad choices. They wouldn't have to pay more for their bad choices, they just get to throw their hands up and say screw it. Unlike socialized medicine, for example, everyone pays in (so while, say smokers, might take out more, they still pay in, so the net difference is smaller and seems fairer).

So basically "more for me, less for other people, and fuck people who are in trouble"?

No thought given to what is best overall for society, for the economy, or other individuals?

Would you change your opinion on easing the student loans burden if it did not translate into higher taxes for yourself?

It's not about more for  me, and less for others. I believe something's are for necessary to socialize. Healthcare like I mentioned. But "easing" the loans of people who consciously made really bad decisions? and leaving them basically free and clear (declaring bankruptcy at a young age isn't a horrible ordeal, really. I know two people who did it) while others pick up the slack? like I said that does not seem fair to me.

[garbon]

So?

Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees.  You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.

Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.

That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.

If corporate America needs basketweavers, it can train them.

Seriously, I don't understand your objection to the bolded part; it's actually a market solution.

Because I think in large part, you are just going to continue the disadvantages given to those on the lower end of the spectrum. Establish quotas and only a certain segment will ever going to make it into college - and disproportionately those are going to be those from well off backgrounds.

I'm also highly skeptical that the Department of Education would do a great job at determining exactly what positions were needed...nor do I like the idea of the government controlling what you get to study.

[HVC]

Also, HVC, if the problem is that history (and art history!) degrees are worthless, is the best solution to make the loans people take out on them nondischargeable, or to stop offering loans on them in the first place?

Someone dumb enough to take out 100k loan on a double major of ancient Sumerian and basket weaving degree is going to find a way. I don't think it's the bank responsibility to gauge the utility of a persons degree, its up to a person to be responsible for their own actions. I'm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes you have to stop trying to save people from themselves.

So, just to understand, banks should have no duty to establish the value of their investments?  Interesting thesis.

Why are people responsible for their actions and not banks?

the value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank

[Jacob]

the value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank

Exactly, it's good for the bank but not for society, nor for you. The public, the taxpayer - you - should not underwrite the bank's investment; at least not unless it creates a public good. Destroying a generation's economic future is not a public good.

[Jacob]

I'm also highly skeptical that the Department of Education would do a great job at determining exactly what positions were needed...nor do I like the idea of the government controlling what you get to study.

That line of argument - distrust in the competence of government - is what the article sketches out as the best line to contest the new generation of voters for the GOP.

[garbon]

the value of their investments is the interest they make. that interest is gaureenteed.so it's a great investment for a bank

Exactly, it's good for the bank but not for society, nor for you. The public, the taxpayer - you - should not underwrite the bank's investment; at least not unless it creates a public good. Destroying a generation's economic future is not a public good.

Of course, that positions these individuals as being simply passive. Just cogs ruined by the system.

[Ideologue]

So?

Anyway, in a perfect world, the Dept. of Education would assume far more responsibility and, based on BLS statistics, establish price caps for tuition and quotas for degrees.  You still want your basketweaving degree, you can try to get a private, dischargeable loan, that won't exist because shareholder value is not raised by giving somebody money in exchange for an agreement that they can and will renege upon.

Prediction: sustained double-digit GDP growth by year five.

That doesn't sound like an ideal world at all.

If corporate America needs basketweavers, it can train them.

Seriously, I don't understand your objection to the bolded part; it's actually a market solution.

Because I think in large part, you are just going to continue the disadvantages given to those on the lower end of the spectrum. Establish quotas and only a certain segment will ever going to make it into college - and disproportionately those are going to be those from well off backgrounds.

Well, I should not have said "ideal."  More ideal would really be Grades 13-16.  Since that's impossible, I'm happy enough to promote a slightly more plausible change to the system.

Anyway, giving everyone a college education has done nothing but devalue a college education (it's probably good for society, but I mean on the individual basis); those from well off backgrounds are exactly as relatively advantaged as before.

I'm also highly skeptical that the Department of Education would do a great job at determining exactly what positions were needed...nor do I like the idea of the government controlling what you get to study.

The government's only controlling what the government pays for.

[Jacob]

Of course, that positions these individuals as being simply passive. Just cogs ruined by the system.

Not entirely passive, but it does seem congruent with reality that any given individual's range of actions are constrained and defined by large scale social and economic forces.

Is that controversial to you?