341–349 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should other people be on the hook for your decisions?
If there are decisions that are so bad people shouldn't be on the hook for them, we should prohibit those decisions. Banning credit for a large portion of the population would be a net good but we can't have that conversation.
A deal between loaner and borrower should be a free agreement between them, not something imposed by the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I must have misread what you said.
That you did is valuable criticism of my writing. When you get deep enough into "no, you're wrong", "no, you're wrong", it becomes virtually impossible to keep track of who's saying what, unless people actually state their claims explicitly… which I didn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They give you the loan because the asset is you . In general if you get a degree, your future earnings increase by more than the cost of the degree. The "problem" is that if you don't pay a mortgage the bank takes the house, but the only thing for them to take if you don't pay your student loans is your future earnings, which is just the thing where you have to pay back the loan.
A educational program using "your future earnings" as collateral only really has a claim to some percentage of the delta between what you earn and what you would earn without the degree (after 4 years experience), which would incentivize them to not to structure programs in a wasteful manner or misrepresent the future economic value of a given program. In many cases, that delta is negative. The school and lender shou…
Second, that doesn't hold true for other assets like mortgages so why would it apply here?
Third, the lender reaaaally should not be telling anyone what career they should do.
Fourth, If the lender and school made no claims that any degree would guarantee extra earnings, why on earth would they need to disclose the opposite? If you saw any marketing copy that claimed you'd be guaranteed more money you can definitely sue for false advertising.
At the end of the day, neither of those industries are guilty of more than helping rumors spread. There may be a specific person who felt ok to lie to you, but it wouldn't make it past their legal department.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the first step is to stop issuing loans in such a way that will cause the next generation of students to suffer the same problems, freeing us up to sort out the problems of previous generations without moral hazard. The UK had what I think was a really nice set up, although it's now not nearly as palatable. My student loan had an interest rate tied to inflation, and repayment was a fixed amount of my income ab…
> The UK had what I think was a really nice set up, although it's now not nearly as palatable. My student loan had an interest rate tied to inflation, and repayment was a fixed amount of my income above a limit, collected via the same mechanisms used for income tax. My problem is that it's presented as a loan but is in effect a tax. I would rather have a graduate tax which was honest on the face of it rather than wil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the first step is to stop issuing loans in such a way that will cause the next generation of students to suffer the same problems, freeing us up to sort out the problems of previous generations without moral hazard. The UK had what I think was a really nice set up, although it's now not nearly as palatable. My student loan had an interest rate tied to inflation, and repayment was a fixed amount of my income ab…
> The UK had what I think was a really nice set up, although it's now not nearly as palatable. My student loan had an interest rate tied to inflation, and repayment was a fixed amount of my income above a limit, collected via the same mechanisms used for income tax. My problem is that it's presented as a loan but is in effect a tax. I would rather have a graduate tax which was honest on the face of it rather than wil…
I have a decent career that means I've paid off my loan. I can easily imagine that many folk with fees and modern loans won't ever even cover the interest payments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>. It signals to borrowers that they don't have to repay high loans if their career can't support it. The loan forgiveness wasn't a thing when many students took out the loans.
It would be a signal to future borrowers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Student loans currently carry no risk. They can't be discharged. Interest is the payment to the lender to accept risk. There is no risk in the current state of student loans. Therefore they should never-ever charge interest. Also schools need to be reigned in, if GA et al can pay each student athlete $40,000 a month, they MUST be held accountable for burdening the students and the state with unscrupulous debt.
> Student loans currently carry no risk. They can't be discharged. Interest is the payment to the lender to accept risk. you make a good point, if there's no risk there should be no interest. Or at worst, the interest rate should track COLA adjustments to social security. Some basic adjustment relative to inflation so the lender gets back what they lent out. Now that schools can pay their athletes I hope the rest of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Student loans currently carry no risk. They can't be discharged. Interest is the payment to the lender to accept risk. There is no risk in the current state of student loans. Therefore they should never-ever charge interest. Also schools need to be reigned in, if GA et al can pay each student athlete $40,000 a month, they MUST be held accountable for burdening the students and the state with unscrupulous debt.
Interest also compensates for the other things that money could be doing. If I didn't loan it to you (or a student), then I would be doing something else with the money, even if just buying a government bond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had a choice between nothing being done and forgiving student loans which would you pick? Second. Let's say universities did take on the burden of loans, of course that would be via a bank right? If that's the case. How would they enforce risk? Based on certain majors? Who would give a loan with no collateral to young people with no credit on the hopes the major they picked had a viable job market years from t…
> Who would give a loan with no collateral to young people with no credit on the hopes the major they picked had a viable job market years from that point? Who gives out scholarships now? Let's also note that the obvious response to the risk of the job market shifting after several years is to shorten the number of years required to pad out the degree, which is pure societal upside. The standard model of a four-year…
Many different of groups of unrelated people and organizations.
>he standard model of a four-year college degree only has you taking classes from your major during the final two years.
This has always been the case in traditional universities in the US.
As many have stated here the goal of education is not just to teach you how to do things but also teach you how to learn.
I do see value in vocational schools that only teach exactly what you enroll in to save money.