That’s an issue I’m aware of. It seems we’re in a system that wants to eat its cake and have it too.
For me, it’s either one or the other. You either have the freedom to succeed or fail based on how good your decisions are but then you are responsible for all outcomes (basically small government). In theory, I prefer this system. In practice, I’m afraid that most people are too dumb/ignorant to handle things properly and/or decide to do what’s right ahead of what’s expedient.
Or you have a system - like social security, medicare, universal healthcare, etc… that acknowledges that most people will mess up if left on their own and need a safety net provided for them. Kinda save them in spite of themselves. It sounds patronizing but it’s not totally unsupported by frequent evidence.
What we cannot have IMO is both systems rolled into one. Many people want the freedom to make their own choices but none of the accountability. Many beg for lower taxes but then expect the government to step in for unemployment, small business free loans, big business bailouts, Fed Bank printing money it does not have for handouts, be free to take on as much student loan debt but not repay it if it was not worth it… From a budgetary sense, it does not make sense but we keep the illusion that it’s still possible to reconcile both approaches.
Don’t lump universal healthcare into things that people will mess up. Plenty of healthcare issues are not the fault of the person experiencing them. Medicare too – you can only dream of planning for something that increases in costs far faster than inflation.
To me, these are socialized safety nets. If nothing else because they are run by the government instead of the private sector.
Instead of Medicare, we could have catastrophic HDHP only and people pay the rest of medical expenses out of pocket using savings from paying low premiums. The opportunity to mess up is not in getting sick/hurt, it’s in a potential lack of saving the difference in premiums for unforeseeable medical expenses.
But Medicare - which is not remotely operating on budget - forces people to pay higher premiums for HMO-type insurance instead of HDHP-type insurance, IMO because we know many people won’t save the difference in premiums (vs. an hypothetical HDHP for retirees) and will just spend it until a medical emergency hits and they cannot pay their deductibles. Medicare for all (or other universal healthcare) would be an extension of that principle in my opinion. Neither are small government systems in any case.
This is a perfect portrayal of how different the viewpoints are on this issue. It’s why conservatives are always unfairly being called heartless. It is essentially assumed by those that aren’t conservative that anyone opposed to universal healthcare has no compassion for people that get sick. It’s just not true.
OK, I suppose we could. How about the uninsured / those who refuse to buy this HDHP?
I think in reality it’s not “most” people who will mess up and need that safety net. It’s probably just 10-20% of the population in the lowest income range who just don’t make enough money to afford insurance or savings. We have an unbalanced income distribution, with most income going to the very top. Relative to median income, health insurance is insanely expensive. All the social programs are meant to reduce poverty (which by definition affects those in the lowest income range), and they do it pretty well I think.
Same as with those refusing to signup for current Medicare B, no? Not many refuse it considering the penalties for declining it.
I think we’ll have to disagree on that considering the fraction of the population that saves enough for retirement. Evidence of how much people save for retirement does not exactly encourage much belief that they could also save for medical bills either if left to them. Or that they wouldn’t run up their credit card balances, or … do a halfway decent cost-benefit analysis before signing up for $200k of student loans for a MS in film studies at an Ivy league or a culinary degree at a for-profit institution.
Yes I’m sure some have cable, unlimited phone plans (which is pretty cheap these days and may be necessary if they don’t have internet at home), and expensive shoes. But not everyone in the lowest income range has these things.
You can teach someone all you want (and we certainly should), but if income is limited (no better jobs, no opportunity, no time because of caring for children or elderly, etc), then even the most frugal budget may not be enough to afford health insurance or savings.
Really? Even if it’s not reported on your media outlets, you can’t miss the signs in windows pleading for people to work, even offering bonuses and salaries significantly higher than minimum wage.
I believe the percentage fitting that description to be tiny.
Any excuse is good enough to cancel a debt. Loans primarily but not exclusively for education targeted by some appeals courts for cancellation in bankruptcy.
Note the case in question is retroactive - he did pay his loan after BK because he reasonably thought he still owed it. But times change and some activist judges are more sympathetic so get yourself a lawyer and take your old lender to court for a refund.
The retroactivity of it is absurd. Wouldn’t you need to show inability to repay a debt to get it discharged? How was he unable to repay this debt if he actually paid it in full already? That makes no sense to me.
A wide ranging general article on higher degrees and how grade/credential inflation is pushing people to take on more debt to seek higher status / employability in what is basically a zero sum contest against other job candidates with dead weight losses going to the universities (and to some extent, the taxpayers to subsidize student loans).
China incidentally cracked down on their huge for-profit school tutoring sector (TAL, EDU, and similar stocks fell by half), suggesting that perhaps they should become non profits, hours of tutoring allowed would be restricted, etc. again, this is an arms race where everyone might be better off not paying and spending all their time trying to prepare and ace some test when that’s not specifically useful for whatever you want to do with your life.
I think it again varies a lot by major. For my Ph.D in Chemical Physics, tuition was free and I was even given a stipend which is now at $28k/yr. I did not have to have a second job or take on any debt. Sure there was an opportunity cost compared to going to industry directly with a BS. I was making 3-4 times less than I’d earn in industry. And eventually starting salary was about 30% higher than someone with BS.
In some fields, BS just does not cut it and it’s not a new thing either. You cannot be employed as a researcher with a BS at a major chemical company since you have 0 experience in doing research and they don’t have 5 years to train you before figuring out if you can cut it. There are entry jobs but without any real path to move up to being primary investigator. My company does not hire in scientific positions without at least a MS, most hires are at Ph.D level due to competition between candidates, and that was the same policy 25 years ago. So you’re out of luck if that’s the career you want.
I think it boils down again to making the right cost vs. benefit analysis at graduation: what does the MS or Ph.D cost you vs. what career will it open up or what extra earnings will it get you? I can believe that the analysis is strongly in favor of sticking with a BA for Arts majors but for hard sciences, it may be more difficult to determine.
That said, the problem is complex because it’s not entirely up to us. Companies will often just as soon hire a foreigner who not only brings the same degree as a US grad but often additional language expertise (possibly a higher potential hire). Often these foreign students were educated abroad for much cheaper and they are also willing to take home less money here (because it’s still better money than back home). And there are a LOT of available candidates, especially from India and China. So, for the same money, who do you hire for a new research position: someone with a Ph.D from overseas who did 2-yr post-doc in the US with 7-yr of experience in research and language expertise or a BS grad with neither of these? Added bonus you’re much more certain to keep the new hire for 6-years due to H1B visa conditions.
And finally there’s marketable potential too. Although I never use Dr. prefix in any internal communications or interactions at work, we are required to use it in signatures, on office doors, or when interacting with customers in chats. It’s like a sales’ argument serving as validation of expertise that holds some marketing value. But I’ve seen it work in many conference calls. The Dr. label is basically a “let me talk to your supervisor” equivalent. I’m not sure how to get this genie back into its bottle though because it’s a bit of a self-propagating cycle.
P.S.: Full disclaimer, I’m one of those foreign-educated grads.
Legislation that would restore struggling borrowers’ right to eliminate student loans through bankruptcy has gained bipartisan support in the Senate, building momentum for a legal change long sought by consumer advocates.
Sens. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) and John Cornyn (R., Texas) on Tuesday announced the Fresh Start Through Bankruptcy Act, which would allow borrowers who file for personal bankruptcy the ability to discharge taxpayer-backed student loans after a 10-year waiting period.
The legislation would also require colleges to partially repay the government for the cost of discharged loans if their students have consistently high default rates and low repayment rates, lawmakers said.
How about this? If you can’t pass the present “undo hardship” BK test, maybe you should just, I don’t know, “Pay your Bills, Deadbeat!”
That sounds good in principle. Making colleges partially responsible for charging students for degrees leading nowhere or for failing to graduate many students.
But in practice, I don’t know how it’d work. For every loan going into default, college responsible would have to pay part of the defaulted amount? I wonder what would be the consequences of this. It’d be an added operating costs for colleges. To balance it, would colleges have to refuse more candidates whom they don’t think have a chance to repay their loans, cutting non-performing majors, or increase their tuition costs to cover the losses? Interesting dynamics in either case.
Student deadbeats rejoice - Biden has your back for another 5 months. Although this is supposedly the “final” extension, that Feb’22 resumption will be less than a year away from 2022 midterms when you can try to vote yourselves more of the taxpayers’ hard earned money.
The administration characterized the decision as the “final” extension of student loan relief, meaning that student loan borrowers should plan on their payments resuming by February of 2022.
While a full executive order or memorandum has yet to be released, all previous extensions of the student loan moratorium provided that the months of suspended payments would count towards student loan forgiveness programs, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, as required under the CARES Act.
