@shinobi, I believe you can now remove tongue from cheek.
It is. And I’m presuming that @xerty was also typing with a grin when he wrote it.
Why this century? Many women earned more than their husbands in the last century, especially when taking into account they didn’t pay taxes. Before anyone gets their panties in a twist, consider what women of the last century did. They performed the duties of:
mother (they raised the children, or at least spent more time and had the greater influence).
psychologist / psychiatrist
shopper (still no twisting, as I’m talking about groceries and dry goods)
my memory well has gone dry, but there are a lot that I’m missing
No, they did not get paid in dollars, and their profession/trade/whatever-you-call-it was denigrated mercilessly and endlessly in the 70’s, 80’s and into the 90’s. BUT, how much would you value a smoothly run home; a happy family; well adjusted, productive children; a husband who loves and appreciates you?
Business and professional success cannot hold a candle to seeing your kids (and grandkids) happy, successful, making smart decisions, and willing to take time out of their busy lives to spend with you … and not just for free babysitting.
This is not a rant against women working outside the home. It is only to point out that women were at least as accomplished in prior generations as those of today.
But what about someone like me? I made my college decision based entirely on how much it was going to cost me - I went with the full ride, rather than school that would’ve left me with high 5-figures of debt (less whatever I worked to pay while in school) upon graduation.
What am I supposed to think, having made decisions (and sacrificies) to prevent getting into financial trouble, when every other aspect of my life could easily have been better had I simply ignored the financial consequences? And that doesnt even consider those who skipped college altogether because of the prospective cost, not knowing that they would not be responsible for the financial consequences. I agree about not going back 50 years, etc, but there are people suffering today because they thought ahead and could see college loans would’ve caused them to suffer even more.
This is ridiculous, but I am serious when I say it - if you’re going to forgive student debt, you need to also give everyone who didnt attend college enough money to make up the difference between what they now earn and what they would’ve earned with a degree. If you’re going to let someone have an education they didnt pay for, you also need to pay people for the education they didnt get because they assumed they would be responsible for the cost. That is the only way to be fair and not merely reward irresponsibility. If paying off the cost of your education is an unfair burdon, your extra income for being educated is equally unfair.
I’m happy with the status quo over what I am about to suggest, but just for kicks, if I were more of a socialist, this is what I would suggest:
Offer student loan forgiveness, but only to the people willing to accept the following proposition. Any year that your income is higher than the median income for a person your age from your high school that did not attend college, every dollar you make above that high school degree median income goes to a fund that every person from your high school that didn’t go to college gets paid from.
Another good point against making it retroactive. There’s no way to turn a bait-and-switch situation into a fair one. And like mentioned before in this thread, it’d also be a precedent for rewarding those ignoring cost vs. benefit analysis in their life decisions.
That said, I suspect any argument in favor of making it retroactive would not be based on practicality, fairness, or what is best long-term for the country. Just simple vote grabbing calculation. But that obviously also applies whether the forgiveness is retroactive or not. Fairness was out of the window at the first mention of forgiveness.
News reporting has lost thousands of jobs over the past decade, with a further slide predicted. Yet, journalism schools continue to churn out heavily indebted master’s degree graduates hoping to find a footing in the cratering industry.
Many students leave even the most prestigious private graduate programs, such as those at Northwestern University, Columbia University and the University of Southern California, with earnings too low to let them make progress paying off their loans, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Education Department figures released this year.
Higher degrees are even worse
At Northwestern, students who recently earned a master’s degree in journalism and took out federal loans borrowed a median $54,900—more than three times as much as their undergraduate counterparts did. That is the biggest gap of any university with available data. Worse still, the master’s degree holders make less money. Early-career earnings for those with master’s degrees in journalism from Northwestern are about $1,500 lower than for its undergraduate students, data show.
Median annual earnings for the remaining jobs, across all experience levels, are currently $49,300. Meanwhile, prices for some of the most prestigious private graduate programs in the field have climbed. Including fees and living expenses, total costs for each [masters] program top $100,000.
Hard to justify $100k in student debt just for a $50k salary for that journalism masters. Even if you assumed you need the masters to a get the job in the first place, otherwise why pay for the expensive degree for a lower salary? Well, unless Biden’s got you the taxpayer footing the bill. They’re not hiring math majors for journalism, that’s for sure.
While undergraduate loans are capped, graduate students can borrow up to the full cost of attendance through the federal Grad Plus program. A Wall Street Journal investigation found that pricey law schools, master’s programs in the arts and others have come to rely on the easy-to-access funds as a core element of students’ financing. Schools receive the money upfront, and taxpayers are on the hook for any loans that aren’t repaid.
Ms. Dzwierzynski, 32 years old, said she understood that she would be going into significant debt for the degree but didn’t know how little she would likely earn.
I’ll spare you the picture of this guy, but there’s a good chance you’ll end up financing his career choices.
Adam Rhodes borrowed $75,000 to attend Medill’s journalism program, aiming to shift from a reporting job covering private equity for a legal publication to writing about social justice and LGBT issues.
Mr. Rhodes, who uses they as a pronoun, graduated in 2020 and got a fellowship at the Chicago Reader, an alternative weekly, making $38,000. They got a $2,000 raise when they went full-time earlier this month.
Mr. Rhodes took a 40% pay cut from their New York job, but said they are more fulfilled in their new role. Still, the loans loom large. The federal government paused payments during the pandemic, but when that lifts early next year, the 28-year-old intends to enroll in a repayment plan limiting monthly payments to a set share of their income. After 20 or 25 years, the remaining debt could be erased, and taxed as income.
Mr. Rhodes, who also has $33,000 in loans for their bachelor’s degree from the University of Central Florida, is holding out hope for President Biden to forgive at least some student debt.
“I am admittedly stressed about finances,” Mr. Rhodes said. “But if there’s any time to take on this kind of debt, it might be when it is potentially going to be erased.”
Well he got that part right.
Maybe I shouldn’t be quite so harsh on “their” personal lifestyle choices. For all I know, as an apparently white [edit Cuban] guy, maybe you need some crazy pronouns if you want a shot at a job in journalism at NYT or something these days.
The schools are spending money on a lot of things that have no educational value like sports teams. For some reason people think these bring in money, but fewer than 10% of schools make a profit and this is only usually during a winning season. In aggravate, collegiate sports do not make universities money, they are an expense.
Are you telling me that “THE” OSU loses money on football? Or that the UK Wildcats lose money on basketball? How about any SEC team losing money on football, or any ACC (accept maybe FL St.) team losing money on basketball? Things have changed a lot in the last 4 or 5 years, but I believe the big three (men’s football, men’s basketball, men’s baseball) all continue to be big money makers, despite the exorbitant coaching salaries, and monstrous venue costs.
They don’t even have to make money to be worth it for the universities. They serve as very effective publicity. It’s a selling point.
Alabama does not attract students based on the quality of their education. How do they compete with thousands of colleges going after below average GPA/test score students? Their football success is what decides many students to go there vs another school and pay more than they should for it (don’t need to offer as many scholarships if people want to get in for other reasons).
O$U is probably doing ok too. In 2019-2020, revenues of Athletics department were $234M with expenses of $215M (profit of $19M). Now the pandemic cost them to have a large deficit last year (~$50M) but that’s the exception, not the rule. Usually they’re making money even before you factor in the impact on school publicity.