I do recognize that I'm essentially committing the sunken cost fallacy.
But certainly you can understand the optics of it, right? We've spent billions bailing out rich people 3 times in the last 15 years, and suddenly there's a massive pushback against helping out the lower classes?
Students got a break. 2 years+ of 0 payments and 0 interest. I took advantage of it and finished paying off my loans. Some individuals I know were purchasing fun cars because the loans were getting "cancelled".
You take on DEBT, you should have an expectation of paying it.
Technically taking advantage of it would have been setting that same money aside monthly into safe investments, then cashing it out and paying it off once interest begins accruing again.
How is this view "fuck you I got mine". I took out loans, and I paid them. If this passed I would get money back. I don't think that is fair for people who paid off their loans before, or those who come after.
On the flip side, too much of the lending was taking on risk that shouldn't be taken. Not hard to argue that a large part of the reason there is so much lending here is regulatory capture that makes it hard to discharge these debts. Which... quite frankly, feels very non-US.
I wonder if people in favor of cancelling the debt are also the folks advocating for tuition free education in which case, sure, you take on debt, you should have to pay it back but really education shouldn't incur debt at all according to them.
Anyway, charging interest on tuition debt seems so backwards to me. We should reward people getting educated, not punish them.
>> We should reward people getting educated, not punish them.
Yes! The idea is that education is the foundation for making a country better prepared in the future. If the US truly wants to invest in its future, education should be the foundation of all plans.
>> The report warns however that private sector development does not solve the problem of access in the survey countries, which often have high levels of inequality and poverty, and where the poor may not be able to pay for education.
Student debt cancellation was a cheap scheme to buy votes from some of the nation's dumbest. Most of the people underwater on student debt were seeking useless degrees in the first place, with no practical plan to pay back the debt from day one. It's similar to expecting the government to pay off your credit card bill after buying that jet ski.
It's a complex problem. Personally I don't think we should be issuing loans for degrees which will not render a successful career path in which to pay back that loan. Similar to how when you apply for a mortgage or other loan, your income and other means of paying the loan back are verified and approved before the loan is granted.
Maybe one of the Europeans can chime in, don't the Germans offer tuition free education BUT it must be for a productive degree (e.g. STEM) and there are serious academic qualifications that have to be met. At that point you can just consider it a government-funded scholarship, it's not free money, there are conditions to be met.
Full-time studies (in the Polish language) at the state Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are free for Polish students and foreigners who commence studies in Poland on terms applicable to Polish citizens (see: define your status). These include citizens of the EU/EEA and students who hold the Polish Charter (Karta Polaka). All other foreigners are required to pay tuition fees that on average are the following:
EUR 2000 per year for the first, second and long cycle studies,
EUR 3000 per year for postgraduate as well as scientific, arts, specialist and post-doctoral internships,
EUR 2000 per year for an annual preparatory Polish language course to commence studies in Polish
I think we really need to tackle this. Some people just make stupid decisions. Maybe they don't know any better? Maybe they are dreamers?
Someone I know personally got a "useless" degree, I have told her multiple times to do research on what prospects she will have after graduation and what kind of ROI she can expect. She got the loans anyway and ended up taking a job that she could have gotten without the education. Total waste of 4 years.
I think art is essential for us humans, but do we need art degrees?
We also need to tackle the cost of higher education.
I would say yes, a society where people study what excites them is a desirable thing. Totally incompatibile with reality nowadays it seems but desirable nonetheless. In other words, I'd like to live in a world where people can follow their passion and don't have to worry about paying their medical bills. I think that makes for a more interesting society.
After thinking about this I think capitalism, which has been working pretty good for me might be the cause of my existential depression. I never considered until I read your comment and it resonated with me.
All my decisions are based on efficiency and ROI. I have build up a decent net worth but my happiness has been trending down.
Actually medical students have the most loans, so unless you think that medical professionals are useless or that medicine should only be practiced by the rich, you should reconsider your views.
In most countries around the world higher education is free (or almost free) if you have the grades to be admitted, it's very a natural process. The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility) in the U.S is the exception and is honestly crazy to me. How can you even speak of 'merit' in such society?
> so unless you think that medical professionals are useless or that medicine should only be practiced by the rich, you should reconsider your views.
Doctors and medical professionals are among the highest paid in this country[1]. Paying off their student loans makes the least sense.
> The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility)
This is so absurdly false. It's a false narrative that's been pushed by higher-learning institutions for decades, and now regular people believe it. You do not need a piece of paper to earn a tremendous amount in this country. So very many blue-collar jobs earn six figures annually.
What's required to have social and economic mobility is a work ethic and skill. It's that simple.
One google search turned up a bunch[1]. The thing they all have in common? Hard work, and skill. If you're skill-less, you aren't going to earn well, ie. if someone else can be trained to do your job in a day, you are not going to earn well.
It's a myth you need a piece of paper to earn well and live well. It needs to die.
We puppy-mill thousands of useless graduates each year and then are shocked they earn so little doing basic office work. In some cases, it's a complete inversion of what people expect - more degree less pay.
Only one of those jobs listed gets six figures and I’ll bet you need a degree or nuke sub background. The only other thing that gets close is police work, a career known for siphoning money from communities by doing bogus OT. Did you even read the link? Nice little ideological rant though, bet that made you feel good.
If you live in a world where you believe you must have a piece of paper to earn six figures - then you've been lied to and you've bought into the lie. In other words, you've been made the fool.
There's so much evidence a degree is not necessary to have a very good life with a great income. You just choose to ignore it because it does not fit into whatever false-truth you've chosen to believe.
How about you come correct with evidence when you make bold statements that are trying to push some ideology you have. This isn’t Reddit.
That link, which is funny because it’s basically blog spam, lists: ATC(school and years of experience required), pilot(school and years of crap pay to break into those numbers), and then lists a bunch of other careers that don’t pay six figures or still require a degree (and you’ll be competing against people who have degrees to get).
Perhaps you are the one who should stop ignoring reality and update your beliefs. Best of luck with that!
It's amazing to me how you've put zero effort into your argument, yet remain staggeringly incorrect.
You do not seem to believe hard work and skill development leads to higher pay.
If you flip burgers at In-n-Out, you will not earn much ($15-20 per hour). If you manage an In-n-Out after putting in years of learning the business and working your way up - you earn close to, and more than often exceed, six figures.
Go ahead - look it up. Place some effort into your argument.
The point being - if someone can be trained to replace you in a day or less, you are not worth much.
ATC does not require a degree either [1]. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.
You don't have to believe me - you just have to put effort into your arguments. Careful - it might shatter your perceived reality.
There's no shortcuts in life. Hard work and developed skills earn big bucks no matter the field.
So your proof of six figure blue collar jobs being abundant is: a fast food chain, that isn’t even a national chain, where you have to work at garbage pay for years to MAYBE get a manager position (for which there are few and I bet they have degrees) where you might possibly get near six figure pay (in what are most likely high COL areas). Are you serious right now?
And the ATC not needing schooling is misleading. You’re only getting accepted via experience if you’ve served in the military as an ATC. Otherwise you need a degree. Go read the BLS overview: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a...
Also I’ve put effort into my argument, not that it required much. You’ve moved the goalposts from oh so many six figure blue collar jobs to maybe you can be a manager at in and out. Which just confirms the OPs point of a degree being necessary for real social mobility. Unless you think everyone in the country can be an in and out manager.
And finally, hard work doesn’t always earn big bucks. Plenty of people work grueling jobs and get paid crap. The break their bodies for nothing. You are just spouting more ideological garbage.
> Plenty of people work grueling jobs and get paid crap
Grueling has nothing to do with developing skills. You do not seem to comprehend this.
You need to develop skills that are not trainable in short duration.
What do all of the job types in the provides sources require? Hard work to develop skills that are not easily replaceable. That is what earns the big bucks. It's so simple, it's bewildering it needs to be said.
Your BLS link states "typical" - ie. not required, and only mentions associates degrees from community colleges. Additionally, the link to the actual agency itself, the FAA, as provided above, clearly indicates no higher education required. I don't understand how you cannot comprehend this.
You seem to think a piece of paper is somehow a shortcut to earning a large income - completely forgetting earning that piece of paper takes at a minimum 4 years - and often much longer.
You also seem to ignore majority of college graduates do not earn six figures straight out of school either. In fact, majority of college graduates do not earn anywhere near six figures[1].
In short, you are ignorant of the realities around you, and choose not to educate yourself on the facts presented and with minimal effort, available in abundance.
Minimal effort in life will cause you to have this outlook. It's disappointing you cannot understand the basic realities at play here. Work hard, develop skills, earn more. It cannot be any more simple.
With a little more effort, you too can be a high earner.
However, I find it super interesting hearing people talk about how terrible high inflation or high interest rates for loans/mortgages are today. All while student loan interest rates have been higher for decades.
This one was just clearly unconstitutional right? Not sure if I’m missing something.
Not that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something along these lines, but it needs to be Congress right? Commentary about this seemed to split along party lines so not sure if there is some legitimate interpretation where this might be constitutional…
The court didn't find the HEROES Act unconstitutional; instead, they found that the executive action was not within the language of the HEROES Act.
It's pretty bad, in my opinion, that the court even reached the merits, because the plaintiffs obviously do not have standing. None of the states were able to show direct financial injury. Instead, they tried to use Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But then why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit?
SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to strike the program down, and this is becoming a theme with the current court. A court that doesn't concern itself with technical correctness is no court at all, but rather a legislature.
The merits of the case were much more straightforward than the standing analysis. But if the plaintiffs didn't have standing, the merits wouldn't be reached. I was slightly surprised that they ruled on standing the way they did, but the underlying merits decision was completely unsurprising (because, as you say, this was a very clear overstepping — as top dems had admitted just months prior).
I think this is just a terrible situation for everyone involved. When growing up it was hammered into us that you needed to go to university to be able to be successful in the world, and so a lot of people went into university not to get a specific degree or anything but to get that piece of paper. The price was hidden behind the easy availability of student loans and the fact that 18 year-olds don't have the career experience or even life experience to really put the total cost into perspective. Is $20,000/year good or bad if your salary is going to be $40,000? What if your salary is $100,000? In addition, the returns to education weren't very obvious, since data on graduate income has only recently been published, and because of the confound that in prior years, university graduation was heavily influenced by parental success, personal ambition, and intelligence, which meant that those people who were likely to go to university would also be the kind of people who would be at the top of the non-University class.
I'm not saying they'd be just as well off if they didn't go to University; what I'm saying is this: In 1960, <10% of Americans graduated University. If you took the type of people who would go to University, and then had them not go to University, they'd likely have greater career outcomes than other people who didn't go to University because of characteristics that were not affected going to education such as parental success, personal ambition, intelligence, etc. This means that the supposed return to education is possibly less than how it appears because those characteristics are a confound that are entirely separate from the knowledge you learn at University.
Universities seem to have taken advantage of the "need" to attend by raising prices, competing for students with excessive luxuries (compared to universities in other countries), and by achieving near perfect price discrimination through the use of scholarships (which allow them to charge each customer's willingness to pay -- a very desirable achievement!) At the same time, we've seen the Administrative class become more bloated, and the power and influence of professors decrease. For instance:
"In 2003, when 5,307 undergraduate students studied on campus, the University employed 3,500 administrators and managers. In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on student enrollment, only 600 more students were living and studying at Yale, yet the number of administrators had risen by more than 1,500 — a nearly 45 percent hike." [0]
It seems that the increase in non-educational spending has no signs of slowing down, and as long as Americans are willing to pay the high education costs, we shouldn't expect University budgets or spending to decrease. Which brings the question: what happens if we make education free? It's obviously not actually free, someone has to pay for it, and it would be the American taxpayer in some way. But how can we get Universities to pull back spending? How do we get them to focus on educational spending and increasing human capital rather than administrative headcount or the university of experience?
That's my issue with the situation. We shouldn't have this loan issue -- University shouldn't cost this much to begin, and paying the Universities to solve a problem (i.e. high cost) that they created seems like a terrible incentive.
There’s something obvious going on that is unfortunately opaque to almost everyone making decisions about higher Ed:
The average college student is 26, with kids, a full time job and often a single parent.
Something very different has happened in our society in the last 50 years - it is not possible to get a “live-able wage” for most without a college degree.
Credentialism has seen every profession require a college degree for a job, even when there’s no underlying basis for it.
It’s become a shortcut for limiting the number of candidates a company needs to consider.
So a degree is required to live, a loan is required to get a degree, and the cost of the degree & the loan are rising while wages are net negative.
Student loans were, from the start, designed by corporate financial architects who became the owners of the loans. They made fortunes on the interest payments.
The reason we brokered this deal politically is social progressives wanted education for all and fiscal conservatives wanted recipients to “pay for it”.
It looked like that would work in the 70s, but today both the borrower and the lender are paying more for the loan structure than the goods cost to deliver.
It’s a special kind of insanity in human history - we are the first civilization to intentionally burden our best and brightest at the start of their lives with debt, then servicing the debt to the point the interest will outrun the principal.
This was a rather bizarre decision for the way Justices sidestepped the crucial issue of "Standing". There were 6 states that brought the case, and none of them would have suffered any harm from the loan forgiveness.
>> On Friday the justices upheld that ruling, finding that Missouri has standing to challenge the debt-relief program because the financial harms to MOHELA from the program will also harm Missouri. Missouri created MOHELA to help state residents obtain student loans to pay for college, Roberts reasoned. It is operated by “state officials and state appointees, reports to the State, and may be dissolved by the State.” If the debt-relief program goes into effect, he observed, MOHELA’s revenues will fall, “impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students” – which in turn “is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”
The plaintiffs should not have had standing. None of the litigant states actually had a direct financial injury; instead, they relied on Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But as Amy Coney Barrett inquired in oral arguments, why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit, if it was really injured?
SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to make a policy decision. The current court is making radical changes to established law, such as last term's decision to throw out much of the VRA simply because the justices felt it was too old and no longer needed. (It was re-authorized in 2006.) Allowing judges to throw out the decisions of the legislature or executive on major policy questions, with a flimsy and partisan legal basis, is not a sustainable way to run a democracy.
MOHELA is owned and funded by the state of Missouri, any injury to it is an injury to the state.
BTW I think current "standing" rules are a travesty and courts should stop dismissing cases on those grounds. It's just a way to weasel out of making certain decisions they don't want to. For example it's pretty clear that someone is harmed by the President giving out $400 million, there's no such thing as free money.
50 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadWe already did, though, at a much higher per-capita cost, and a total program cost of about twice what this would have cost.
https://boingboing.net/2022/08/24/jared-kushner-kanye-west-j...
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29669
Okay, but don't you think it's at least a little fucked up that we already bailed out the rich people, but we stopped there?
But certainly you can understand the optics of it, right? We've spent billions bailing out rich people 3 times in the last 15 years, and suddenly there's a massive pushback against helping out the lower classes?
I'd like you to at least acknowledge the optics.
Students got a break. 2 years+ of 0 payments and 0 interest. I took advantage of it and finished paying off my loans. Some individuals I know were purchasing fun cars because the loans were getting "cancelled".
You take on DEBT, you should have an expectation of paying it.
Anyway, charging interest on tuition debt seems so backwards to me. We should reward people getting educated, not punish them.
Yes! The idea is that education is the foundation for making a country better prepared in the future. If the US truly wants to invest in its future, education should be the foundation of all plans.
https://www.unesco.org/en/higher-education/need-know
https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/investingineducationpaysrichdi...
>> The report warns however that private sector development does not solve the problem of access in the survey countries, which often have high levels of inequality and poverty, and where the poor may not be able to pay for education.
Maybe one of the Europeans can chime in, don't the Germans offer tuition free education BUT it must be for a productive degree (e.g. STEM) and there are serious academic qualifications that have to be met. At that point you can just consider it a government-funded scholarship, it's not free money, there are conditions to be met.
Full-time studies (in the Polish language) at the state Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are free for Polish students and foreigners who commence studies in Poland on terms applicable to Polish citizens (see: define your status). These include citizens of the EU/EEA and students who hold the Polish Charter (Karta Polaka). All other foreigners are required to pay tuition fees that on average are the following:
EUR 2000 per year for the first, second and long cycle studies,
EUR 3000 per year for postgraduate as well as scientific, arts, specialist and post-doctoral internships,
EUR 2000 per year for an annual preparatory Polish language course to commence studies in Polish
AFAIR all public education is tuition free and only has administrative cost associated.
I think we really need to tackle this. Some people just make stupid decisions. Maybe they don't know any better? Maybe they are dreamers?
Someone I know personally got a "useless" degree, I have told her multiple times to do research on what prospects she will have after graduation and what kind of ROI she can expect. She got the loans anyway and ended up taking a job that she could have gotten without the education. Total waste of 4 years.
I think art is essential for us humans, but do we need art degrees?
We also need to tackle the cost of higher education.
All my decisions are based on efficiency and ROI. I have build up a decent net worth but my happiness has been trending down.
In most countries around the world higher education is free (or almost free) if you have the grades to be admitted, it's very a natural process. The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility) in the U.S is the exception and is honestly crazy to me. How can you even speak of 'merit' in such society?
Doctors and medical professionals are among the highest paid in this country[1]. Paying off their student loans makes the least sense.
> The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility)
This is so absurdly false. It's a false narrative that's been pushed by higher-learning institutions for decades, and now regular people believe it. You do not need a piece of paper to earn a tremendous amount in this country. So very many blue-collar jobs earn six figures annually.
What's required to have social and economic mobility is a work ethic and skill. It's that simple.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/highest-paying.htm
It's a myth you need a piece of paper to earn well and live well. It needs to die.
We puppy-mill thousands of useless graduates each year and then are shocked they earn so little doing basic office work. In some cases, it's a complete inversion of what people expect - more degree less pay.
[1] https://theinterviewguys.com/highest-paying-blue-collar-jobs...
https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/jobs/working-class-jobs...
It's easy. I clicked the 3rd link on google.
If you live in a world where you believe you must have a piece of paper to earn six figures - then you've been lied to and you've bought into the lie. In other words, you've been made the fool.
There's so much evidence a degree is not necessary to have a very good life with a great income. You just choose to ignore it because it does not fit into whatever false-truth you've chosen to believe.
That link, which is funny because it’s basically blog spam, lists: ATC(school and years of experience required), pilot(school and years of crap pay to break into those numbers), and then lists a bunch of other careers that don’t pay six figures or still require a degree (and you’ll be competing against people who have degrees to get).
Perhaps you are the one who should stop ignoring reality and update your beliefs. Best of luck with that!
You do not seem to believe hard work and skill development leads to higher pay.
If you flip burgers at In-n-Out, you will not earn much ($15-20 per hour). If you manage an In-n-Out after putting in years of learning the business and working your way up - you earn close to, and more than often exceed, six figures.
Go ahead - look it up. Place some effort into your argument.
The point being - if someone can be trained to replace you in a day or less, you are not worth much.
ATC does not require a degree either [1]. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.
You don't have to believe me - you just have to put effort into your arguments. Careful - it might shatter your perceived reality.
There's no shortcuts in life. Hard work and developed skills earn big bucks no matter the field.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/be-atc#:~:text=Be%20younger%20than%2031%...
And the ATC not needing schooling is misleading. You’re only getting accepted via experience if you’ve served in the military as an ATC. Otherwise you need a degree. Go read the BLS overview: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/a...
Also I’ve put effort into my argument, not that it required much. You’ve moved the goalposts from oh so many six figure blue collar jobs to maybe you can be a manager at in and out. Which just confirms the OPs point of a degree being necessary for real social mobility. Unless you think everyone in the country can be an in and out manager.
And finally, hard work doesn’t always earn big bucks. Plenty of people work grueling jobs and get paid crap. The break their bodies for nothing. You are just spouting more ideological garbage.
Grueling has nothing to do with developing skills. You do not seem to comprehend this.
You need to develop skills that are not trainable in short duration.
What do all of the job types in the provides sources require? Hard work to develop skills that are not easily replaceable. That is what earns the big bucks. It's so simple, it's bewildering it needs to be said.
Your BLS link states "typical" - ie. not required, and only mentions associates degrees from community colleges. Additionally, the link to the actual agency itself, the FAA, as provided above, clearly indicates no higher education required. I don't understand how you cannot comprehend this.
You seem to think a piece of paper is somehow a shortcut to earning a large income - completely forgetting earning that piece of paper takes at a minimum 4 years - and often much longer.
You also seem to ignore majority of college graduates do not earn six figures straight out of school either. In fact, majority of college graduates do not earn anywhere near six figures[1].
In short, you are ignorant of the realities around you, and choose not to educate yourself on the facts presented and with minimal effort, available in abundance.
Minimal effort in life will cause you to have this outlook. It's disappointing you cannot understand the basic realities at play here. Work hard, develop skills, earn more. It cannot be any more simple.
With a little more effort, you too can be a high earner.
[1] https://www.zippia.com/advice/average-starting-salary-out-of....
However, I find it super interesting hearing people talk about how terrible high inflation or high interest rates for loans/mortgages are today. All while student loan interest rates have been higher for decades.
So it's basically the pooled risk rate where good debtors cover the additional risk of poor debtors.
The good debters are not covering the bad debters in this case.
Not that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something along these lines, but it needs to be Congress right? Commentary about this seemed to split along party lines so not sure if there is some legitimate interpretation where this might be constitutional…
It's pretty bad, in my opinion, that the court even reached the merits, because the plaintiffs obviously do not have standing. None of the states were able to show direct financial injury. Instead, they tried to use Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But then why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit?
SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to strike the program down, and this is becoming a theme with the current court. A court that doesn't concern itself with technical correctness is no court at all, but rather a legislature.
I'm not saying they'd be just as well off if they didn't go to University; what I'm saying is this: In 1960, <10% of Americans graduated University. If you took the type of people who would go to University, and then had them not go to University, they'd likely have greater career outcomes than other people who didn't go to University because of characteristics that were not affected going to education such as parental success, personal ambition, intelligence, etc. This means that the supposed return to education is possibly less than how it appears because those characteristics are a confound that are entirely separate from the knowledge you learn at University.
Universities seem to have taken advantage of the "need" to attend by raising prices, competing for students with excessive luxuries (compared to universities in other countries), and by achieving near perfect price discrimination through the use of scholarships (which allow them to charge each customer's willingness to pay -- a very desirable achievement!) At the same time, we've seen the Administrative class become more bloated, and the power and influence of professors decrease. For instance:
"In 2003, when 5,307 undergraduate students studied on campus, the University employed 3,500 administrators and managers. In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on student enrollment, only 600 more students were living and studying at Yale, yet the number of administrators had risen by more than 1,500 — a nearly 45 percent hike." [0]
It seems that the increase in non-educational spending has no signs of slowing down, and as long as Americans are willing to pay the high education costs, we shouldn't expect University budgets or spending to decrease. Which brings the question: what happens if we make education free? It's obviously not actually free, someone has to pay for it, and it would be the American taxpayer in some way. But how can we get Universities to pull back spending? How do we get them to focus on educational spending and increasing human capital rather than administrative headcount or the university of experience?
That's my issue with the situation. We shouldn't have this loan issue -- University shouldn't cost this much to begin, and paying the Universities to solve a problem (i.e. high cost) that they created seems like a terrible incentive.
[0] https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-...
DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education
https://www.amazon.com/DIY-Edupunks-Edupreneurs-Transformati...
There’s something obvious going on that is unfortunately opaque to almost everyone making decisions about higher Ed:
The average college student is 26, with kids, a full time job and often a single parent.
Something very different has happened in our society in the last 50 years - it is not possible to get a “live-able wage” for most without a college degree.
Credentialism has seen every profession require a college degree for a job, even when there’s no underlying basis for it.
It’s become a shortcut for limiting the number of candidates a company needs to consider.
So a degree is required to live, a loan is required to get a degree, and the cost of the degree & the loan are rising while wages are net negative.
Student loans were, from the start, designed by corporate financial architects who became the owners of the loans. They made fortunes on the interest payments.
The reason we brokered this deal politically is social progressives wanted education for all and fiscal conservatives wanted recipients to “pay for it”.
It looked like that would work in the 70s, but today both the borrower and the lender are paying more for the loan structure than the goods cost to deliver.
It’s a special kind of insanity in human history - we are the first civilization to intentionally burden our best and brightest at the start of their lives with debt, then servicing the debt to the point the interest will outrun the principal.
Student loan forgiveness is our only way out.
>> On Friday the justices upheld that ruling, finding that Missouri has standing to challenge the debt-relief program because the financial harms to MOHELA from the program will also harm Missouri. Missouri created MOHELA to help state residents obtain student loans to pay for college, Roberts reasoned. It is operated by “state officials and state appointees, reports to the State, and may be dissolved by the State.” If the debt-relief program goes into effect, he observed, MOHELA’s revenues will fall, “impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students” – which in turn “is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”
SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to make a policy decision. The current court is making radical changes to established law, such as last term's decision to throw out much of the VRA simply because the justices felt it was too old and no longer needed. (It was re-authorized in 2006.) Allowing judges to throw out the decisions of the legislature or executive on major policy questions, with a flimsy and partisan legal basis, is not a sustainable way to run a democracy.
BTW I think current "standing" rules are a travesty and courts should stop dismissing cases on those grounds. It's just a way to weasel out of making certain decisions they don't want to. For example it's pretty clear that someone is harmed by the President giving out $400 million, there's no such thing as free money.