Already said…
Change bankruptcy laws to allow these debts to be discharged in that system and get banks out of student loans.
I don’t care much for the fairness argument. “Is it fair?” tends to be a low-utility question when it comes to public policy; see any conversation about what tax policy is fairer. Better questions are about what, specifically, we are trying to accomplish, whether the policy change actually achieves that, how the policy change affects incentives, and what downstream effects we can expect from the change.
The supposed student loan crisis in this country is largely overblown. The median undergrad student graduating with debt (so excluding the 1/3rd of students who graduate with zero debt) leaves with ~$25k. We’re talking 25% more than the average price of a used car and much less than the average price of a new car. The total amount of school loan debt in this country is similar to the total amount of vehicle loan debt. And both are obviously dwarfed by real estate debt. There are many individuals in financial crisis with debt in any of the above categories. I support policies to help them. Not policies to shunt money my way if I were to take out a loan to manage cash flow if I or my wife were to want even more school, or to our physician friends who make even more than we do. When I was in grad school, where everyone had a full tuition waiver plus a stipend, one guy was still taking out loans so he could play golf. Taxing other people (current or future) to pay off his loans just because they were officially school-related doesn’t sound like a good plan. But if he’s unable to be a functional member of society because of debt from whatever source, then sure, let’s figure something out.
That said, I fully appreciate perfect/enemy/good; the existence of fringe cases doesn’t necessarily negate the overall benefit of any policy action.
Yes, the sticker price of college is rising fast, but fewer and fewer students are actually paying sticker price. Harvard looks frighteningly expensive, but it’s actually cheaper than most state schools if you come from average family income. Colleges raise (sticker) price because they can. Some students are cost-conscious, but many or not. Colleges will stop the spending spree only if they have a reason to, be it students not being willing to pay the price, incentives changing, or government rules changing. Debt forgiveness doesn’t accomplish any of these, and the moral hazard likely pushes pricing in the opposite direction.
Folks here have discussed options for controlling costs and prices (not the same thing, even if I have a habit of using them interchangeably), but as others have pointed out, enacting them without restricting access to certain populations is a tricky proposition. But an interesting problem to tackle.
The implications are exactly what you wrote, that you are “basing this almost entirely on the anecdotes told to [you] by friends and acquaintances”. Students are not rushing into supposedly lucrative majors only to have related salaries “diminish substantially” by the time they graduate. This isn’t a real problem. The government isn’t lacking for marine biologist talent due to taxpayers not approving of paying an appropriate (which I read as market) wage for marine biologists. This isn’t a real problem.
Lower (real) pay for ChemE graduates resulting from increasing supply that exceeds increasing demand is not a “flaw”.
You proposed applying a rubric to subsidize certain majors over others. That’s a bad idea.
It is a bit of a flaw if it doesn’t mean that the price tag of education for that field is also lower.
I really didn’t. I was responding directly to someone who did do what you said, in saying that we should subsidize STEM majors and nothing else, with a very weak “proposal” worded as, “in some ways”. It was a rebuttal to that poster making exactly the sort of proposal that you want to chuckle about, not actually a proposal in and of itself.
Why? I have given you the reasons why not, why are you so eager to hand over our money?
Why not a one-time loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for credit card debt? That would certainly stimulate buying and people who ran up CC debt are just as deserving.
Or hell, ten times better, the main cause of individual bankruptcy is hospital/medical debt. Let’s give everyone a one-time debt forgiveness of up to $50,000 for medical debt. Those people are certainly deserving.
Why the fuck should we give college students free money?
Yeah, how about a one-time loan forgiveness of up to $30,000 for buying a car?Man, that would jumpstart the economy like nobody’s business. The Dow would jump to 40K in a few days.
Or even better- at least for me- a one-time loan forgiveness of up to $100,000 for Mortgage loans. Homeowners are at least as deserving as college students and what with the Covid many are struggling to pay off those home loans.
And I have given you reasons why…
Where?
Post 154 (I think…I still have a hard time figuring out the numbers here).
And there have been given reasons as to why it would be useful to society as well.
I disagree entirely with this, as they received material goods in return for the debt that they acquired. They are not “just as deserving”.
As part of a comprehensive medical care bill, I agree. But that’s outside the scope of this thread.
That’s not what we would be doing.
That’s your reason? That COLLEGE students were stupid? 
Not always- some charge medical bills, utility bills, etc.
No, it is not. The idea is to give college students $50000 because they were stupid. And my point "why not’ is the cost. Since money is somewhat limited, let us triage what we spend it on=
Medical debt
Student loans
Credit cars
New cars.
medical debt comes first.
My reason is 18 year-olds are not exactly savvy to the world yet and, more importantly, they are sold that their only route to future prosperity is through college because blue collar jobs are gone…which is not wrong but future prosperity via college is far, far from a guarantee.
Then they graduate and there are not jobs. It is not that they are incapable…it is that there are not jobs. Then the bill collector comes telling them to pay off tens of thousands in debt.
Doubtless you were a brilliant and savvy 18-year-old who had the world figured out but most people are not you. I’m willing to bet your education cost a lot less too.
Because an educated society is in the public interest, overwhelmingly so. This does not apply to CC debt.
We should wipe out all medical debt (except for cosmetic/elective surgery), the fact that we indebt people in order to keep them from dying is absolutely barbaric.
That 17-18 year olds were mislead by people who stood to gain from them believing that this was a good choice to make. Sure.
By Law they are adults, and that is all that is needed. Now i can see putting the age of adulthood back to 21, but that ship has sailed. Not only adults, but supposedly smarter than average and well educated adults. That dog dont hunt.
No I was foolish as all fuck but my Dad , with his Masters in Sociology wasnt. (GI bill) Maybe I was smarter than the average bear, but college kids are supposed to be that.
Ok, let’s do that first. I mean, sure allow a few thou if you are paying it off, but yeah, get rid of it all. The best, and cheapest way would be to dismiss all sold medical debt- NOW! The debt collection agencies can get fucked for all i care.
Not 17, they cant sign any debt papers.
The issue is that there is almost NO route to prosperity except through college.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Medical bills has been discussed.
Utility bills are a material good.
Besides, credit cards can be discharged through bankruptcy. This is not something that needs to change in order to address those who have gotten over their heads in debt that way.
That actually is not the idea…
Triage doesn’t mean that you treat the worst off patient and leave the rest to die.