Well, it’s good to see conservatives care about government spending and national debt again. I was getting nervous, seeing as how they seemed to enjoy skyrocketing the deficit the last couple years.
Agreed. Implicit in these government programs like student loans is the idea that because (when they were enacted) people with college degrees got the best jobs and that the reason some people didn’t go to college was because they couldn’t afford it, if we just give them a way to afford it, then everyone will go to college and everyone (or nearly everyone) will have good professional jobs.
The law of unintended consequences came into play and we are paying for it now. All it did was ratchet everything a step upward and inflate credentials, causing people to have crippling debt in the process.
I found this a rather good take on the plan and student loans in general today. ISTM it touches on both the positive assertions and negative comments posted in this thread thus far.
The important thing is that the cost of college today is far out of proportion to what it was not so long ago. The current situation is simply unsustainable on a societal level. Do I have any gripes about all the money I’ve paid off for my student loans? No, and I’m almost finished paying that off. Granted, I did not need to use student loans for all of my college education: I got MGIB, attended community college, and finally graduated from a state university. I also did take a number of courses while I was overseas both before and during military service. One could say that the majority of my education was paid for with other people’s money, some of which I have spent the last fifteen years repaying. Yet, I still have no gripe if Senator Warren’s plan is enacted.
I got an education, I got employment, and others deserve the same opportunity. As I said, the current system is unsustainable and, since it takes a double-miracle practically to have student loans discharged in bankruptcy, it will become even more unsustainable in the near future. This is not reparations. It’s simply a move to make a college education what it purports to be.
Anyone who needs a cite for basic-ass government data probably shouldn’t be participating in the conversation. But I’ll play. Which point do you disagree with? The pay vs wage point is covered in your Pew article – real pay has increased faster than real wages. That’s from your own link. Are you going to embarrass yourself by denying that individuals earn more money over time? That boomers are being replaced? Or are you going to claim that you’d rather live in 19__ on $X vs the CPI-adjusted amount today? Do tell, but maybe try “a lot of thinking” while you work it out. We’ve been over all these topics before, so I’m ready.
People keep making the moral hazard argument, but that shipped has already sailed with the bail-out of GM and big banks. I say it’s now time for some “little guys” to get some help.
Ready to strawman like many others. In this case the point was purchasing power, of course that does not fit the conservative narrative so talking about an item that was already acknowledged like if that would counter it is reached for.
Asian doesn’t mean foreign, shocker. They publish the number of Asian undergrads and the number of them who are out-of-state. Most are Ohio residents for enrollment purposes.
The Trumpist narrative is one of doom and gloom and stagnation for the average Joe. My points counter that narrative. If you wish to challenge one of my points, let’s hear it.
Re: the tuition side of the OP, I’m not necessarily opposed to increased or total tuition support, but it would have to be tied to a mechanism that controls cost and does not reduce quality. I don’t think this is impossible but I’m not clever enough to come up with a plan that works in my head. I’m hoping some of you have some ideas.
I already did challenge that, and it seems that it is peculiar to claim that Trump’s narrative is of gloom when he himself talks about minorities and the poor doing better under him.
Again, not challenging your point, the point that I and the other poster made stands, per Pew, the purchasing power of most Americans has stalled. “After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978”
Huh… my loans were Stafford loans, which were by a private lender, but since they’re backed by the government, had a lower interest rate than comparable entirely private loans.
I didn’t realize the government is directly loaning money now. What’s the advantage of doing that exactly? Seems like they picked up all the overhead and trouble, without actually making any money on the deal.
Because monetary input must match monetary output. Unless you want the schools to borrow money, that wave of a pen would need to include concomitant cost reductions or state funding increases. Which are decisions they could make.
The government accountants figured it would save them a fair bit of money. That’s why they did it: they were looking for ways to offset the cost of Obamacare and figured this would help some.
I wonder what the effect would be on athletic scholarships?
Only a few people make it to be a professional so the big reason parents shell out the big bucks is for a scholarship to pay for college. But what if that need wasnt there? Why even work to play on a college team? Just for the glory of saying you played for State? Maybe. In some sports. But for most athletes the time commitment that they put in right now wouldnt be worth it without the fear of being cut from the team and losing your scholarship.
Well actually right now the states subsidize colleges but if the federal government will now pay the tab, why should the states give the universities any money?
Is Pew using CPI-U, CPI-U-X1, CPI-U-RS or PCE (or, are they using R.O.U.S. … this last one being a trick question ;))? Since it looks to me, skimming the article, that it’s from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I’d guess it’s one of the former, probably CPI-U-X1. If so, then you might want to dig into some of the objections to using those stats to draw the conclusions they are drawing. If they are using PCE then…never mind. If they are using R.O.U.S. then my suggestion would be to run, very fast…
“The average middle class person has virtually stagnant pay over the last several decades” and “today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978” do not have the same meaning. UCBearcats may have meant one thing while typing something else, but we can only go by what was actually written. And the average person gets paid more over time – see any BLS CPS earning-by-age table. The average wage is masked by entrants and exits from the job market: The Good News on Wage Growth - San Francisco Fed
That is, grandma retires, dad gets a raise, junior gets her first job. That decreases the average wage even though nobody is suffering. We have 10k boomers hitting 65 every day, so I expect this demographic masking to continue.
Again, not countering that, the point was about purchasing power, your article does report on the item I’m not criticizing (in reality that growth is good, but needs improvement; again, because of the lesser purchasing power) but it does not do any comparison with past purchasing power.