I am referring to the purchasing power of dollars from 19xx to today. Yes because of inflation and COLA the raw dollar amount has increased.
In some fields the actual salary has decreased for people, i.e. education. The middle class has not advanced over the last several decades compared to the 1%.
And you have evidence for this?
And yet college costs have greatly outpaced general inflation. Why? The obvious answer is, again, too much money for that particular expense. Isn’t it ironic that when the government distorts the market for political gain that the market responds in a way that actually is counter to the stated intent?
Here’s real median personal income:
That’s a good point as well. If the states have decided to cut their budgets by not funding their state schools so much, why should the feds essentially give them free money for doing so? And what is to stop this trend from accelerating if the feds now pay for everything?
That is what I’ve been asking. There are ways of preventing this, but I don’t see it in EW’s proposal.
I’m not following this at all. What “big bucks” are parents shelling out to get a scholarship?
Also, are you saying that if student loans were forgiven then college would be free? I doubt most people get loans that cover as much as an athletic scholarship does.
In general, a first world UHC system saves sufficient money compared to the US system to cover that nations military expenses and the total education costs from grade one through university.
Those national also have numerous other benefits.
(Some) parents spend big bucks on sports training, but I couldn’t tell you the scale.
I don’t support loan forgiveness for federal loans unless the person receiving forgiveness is providing something of value in return to the taxpayer. If they’re working for the federal government (or on their behalf as a contractor) perhaps that could be an incentive: eliminate the red tape and in addition to salary, we could help that individual by eliminating a set dollar amount of the remaining student loan balance for as long as they remain employed.
But I’m not a fan of just forgiving loans and free college, and this kind of gimmickry without talking seriously about how we’re going to get the 1% to pay for any of this first is nonsense, and frankly, it makes me take Warren and Sanders less seriously.
The solution was mentioned early, any forgiveness or free tuition should be means tested.
Normally I would strongly agree with these sentiments. The fact that, for example, some blacks died before they were given civil rights is no reason to deny rights to the living!
BUT, in this case the unfairness would be tangible and immediate. A worker (Alan) sitting next to another worker (Bob) with identical job, competence and education, would see his fellow driving a flashy sports-car while Alan drives a clunker because Alan played by the rules and scrimped to repay his debt. I love Senator Warren but I would come to hate her if I were Alan and this policy were enacted.
If the problem is that tuition should have been subsidized during the 2000’s then subsidize it retroactively. Reimburse 20% or $5000 per year (arbitrary example figures) whichever is smaller whether student loans are outstanding or not. Some would get their loans cut, others a cash rebate.
Very expensive? Sure! But don’t make the rebate unfair just to make it cheaper.
Presumably “whether loans are outstanding or not” would be extended to “whether the recipient went to college or not.” Because there are probably people who didn’t go to school who would have gone at the discounted price. So basically it’s a one time case payout to anyone between the ages of 22 and 35 or something
Tuitions should be subsidized or otherwise reduced going forward, so those who opted against an expensive education would have a second chance.
Yes, it will be difficult to balance the program’s fairness with simplicity but, since hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, an effort should be made.
I like points 1 and 3, but point 2 potentially makes it much harder for poorer kids to go to college. The rich already have huge advantages in getting higher education. If we add #3, I don’t think we need #2. The market will already quickly figure out what a good limit for loans is, since if they loan people too much money they won’t get paid back in the bankruptcy.
I think you probably need a whole different process for bankruptcy of school loans, though. Like, they shouldn’t be dischargeable immediately or fully, or there’s a huge incentive to get your valuable education, immediately declare bankruptcy, then go on to have your higher-paid professional career. But after, say, a decade, yeah.
Most kids who aspire for a college scholarship need training and to play in competitive leagues way higher than high school. Easily $10,000 a year for several years for sports like baseball, hockey, swimming, and even higher for others like gymnastics. So its easily in the $100,000 range over the years.
What then would be the point of working hard for ANY scholarships if college was going to be free?
I dont think you all realize all the details and work parents and kids put into getting scholarships. Its practically a full time job seeing all the paperwork one must send in to get even $500 from this place or $1,000 from another.
Finally, once your in college, whats the point of working hard and striving to get thru in say 3 years taking 18 credits a semester instead of 14?
I think the idea is that if you are a Division I football prospect with a chance to make the NFL, then great, this will not affect you.
But if you are a women’s volleyball player, for example, whose talent level was barely good enough to get a scholarship and have no designs on taking your volleyball career any further, then why, first, as a parent dedicate thousands of dollars to these volleyball camps and travel teams starting when the child is in the womb, and second, once you start school, why devote countless hours to practicing volleyball and travelling, and playing on the team, when the government is going to pay your way anyways.
It’s not just sports, but also academics. I remember my senior year filling out applications and writing essays to different scholarship boards explaining what experiences I could share by growing up in a small town, what I would do to educate people on the evils of drunk driving, or how I felt the Lions Club was a positive influence that could help the community.
Also, more importantly, was putting my nose to the grindstone to get good grades and studying for the ACT to get good test scores to get into school. Engaging in extracurricular activities was also considered (at least we were told) important.
If it is all free anyways, why should a high school student do anything but make the bare minimum to pass if he or she has no designs on an elite school?
Snipping mine.
Because they want to? Heaven forbid we let our children do things because they enjoy them instead of because it will look good to a scholarship committee.