No.. I am arguing that they are both 'welfare' and that, forced to make the choice, I would choose to pay for education over paying to protect mediocrity.
No.. I am arguing that they are both 'welfare' and that, forced to make the choice, I would choose to pay for education over paying to protect mediocrity.You are literally arguing that giving people money in exchange for nothing so that they can attend university debt-free is not welfare but protecting an employee's ability to work a good job for a private third party is welfare. You haven't jumped the shark, you've cruised over him at 80,000 feet. Congrats.
Even when that education isn't needed? What degrees will you allow? What if you only graduate psychology degrees, as a huge proportion of women are doign, because it is easier.No.. I am arguing that they are both 'welfare' and that, forced to make the choice, I would choose to pay for education over paying to protect mediocrity.
Even when that education isn't needed? What degrees will you allow? What if you only graduate psychology degrees, as a huge proportion of women are doign, because it is easier.
College education is wasted for the vast majority of jobs below average intelligence people are obtaining.
Even when that education isn't needed? What degrees will you allow? What if you only graduate psychology degrees, as a huge proportion of women are doign, because it is easier.
College education is wasted for the vast majority of jobs below average intelligence people are obtaining.
Ironically for someone who seems to hate Paul Krugman so much, that is exactly what he predicted and exactly how he crushed all the Austrians who thought they knew what they were doing because they were investors.
Send me your money.And how were us Austrians wrong? Real estate has never been as unaffordable and expensive as it is right now. I've linked many articles showing that average Americans are crippled by rent prices rising much faster than wages.
Austrians said money printing would concentrate wealth and power into the hands of the upper class because those are the people who have access to freshly printed money, and that is exactly what happened. Regular folks lost their houses, and now those houses are owned by hedge funds and REITs. Home ownership is lower now than any point in the last 10 years. We said massive credit growth would create a massive stock bubble, and that is exactly what happened.
If people like Krugman and Bernanke knew anything about economics or accounting, they would be working for large brokerage firms, making tens of millions of dollars per year, and helping them predict the future. As it turns out, the people who work for brokerage firms and do this stuff for a living tend to follow the Austrian school of economics. Mainstream economics will tell you what central planners will do in response to a crisis because central planners follow mainstream economics, but Austrian economics will tell you what happens as a result of trying to centrally plan the economy.
Back when the tech bubble started to deflate, mainstream economists believed the crash could be stopped by lowering interest rates. They had all kinds of graphs and math equations to explain why this should theoretically work, but it didn't work. They were lowing interest rates the entire time, and that tech bubble still deflated. Austrian economists looked at the situation and used that thing called common sense to predict what would happen next. Instead of reflating the same bubble, loose monetary policy would likely create bubbles in different asset classes because humans are driven by emotions and psychology more than they are driven by graphs and math equations. It ended up being real estate this time. There's no way to predict what the bubble will be, but one can predict with very high certainty that one will form somewhere as a result of the fed's actions.
Now we're in that 2006-2007 twilight zone where Austrians are saying the party is ending because high yield credit has been screaming recession since mid 2014, and we're currently in an "earnings recession" meaning corporate earnings are down but stocks continue to levitate at hugely inflated prices. The mainstream economists are once again saying everything is fine, the economy is not turning over, there's no recession, and extremist candidates like Bernie and Trump are not in any way a reflection of how angry and desperate average Americans feel.
Who should I trust? Should I trust the bond market, which is screaming recession, or should I trust some economists who get everything wrong?
And how were us Austrians wrong? Real estate has never been as unaffordable and expensive as it is right now. I've linked many articles showing that average Americans are crippled by rent prices rising much faster than wages.
Austrians said money printing would concentrate wealth and power into the hands of the upper class because those are the people who have access to freshly printed money, and that is exactly what happened. Regular folks lost their houses, and now those houses are owned by hedge funds and REITs. Home ownership is lower now than any point in the last 10 years. We said massive credit growth would create a massive stock bubble, and that is exactly what happened.
If people like Krugman and Bernanke knew anything about economics or accounting, they would be working for large brokerage firms, making tens of millions of dollars per year, and helping them predict the future. As it turns out, the people who work for brokerage firms and do this stuff for a living tend to follow the Austrian school of economics. Mainstream economics will tell you what central planners will do in response to a crisis because central planners follow mainstream economics, but Austrian economics will tell you what happens as a result of trying to centrally plan the economy.
Back when the tech bubble started to deflate, mainstream economists believed the crash could be stopped by lowering interest rates. They had all kinds of graphs and math equations to explain why this should theoretically work, but it didn't work. They were lowing interest rates the entire time, and that tech bubble still deflated. Austrian economists looked at the situation and used that thing called common sense to predict what would happen next. Instead of reflating the same bubble, loose monetary policy would likely create bubbles in different asset classes because humans are driven by emotions and psychology more than they are driven by graphs and math equations. It ended up being real estate this time. There's no way to predict what the bubble will be, but one can predict with very high certainty that one will form somewhere as a result of the fed's actions.
Now we're in that 2006-2007 twilight zone where Austrians are saying the party is ending because high yield credit has been screaming recession since mid 2014, and we're currently in an "earnings recession" meaning corporate earnings are down but stocks continue to levitate at hugely inflated prices. The mainstream economists are once again saying everything is fine, the economy is not turning over, there's no recession, and extremist candidates like Bernie and Trump are not in any way a reflection of how angry and desperate average Americans feel.
Who should I trust? Should I trust the bond market, which is screaming recession, or should I trust some economists who get everything wrong?
Education can be wasted, but it is always needed. Without public education, democracy is nothing but the rule of the mob.
I see your point about admissions reform, but I'm not sure it's relevant. The government is going to end up paying for most of those defaulted student loans anyway. Why not do it on the books instead of hiding it like is being done now? Or is that a naive question?
We ad very little education for most of our countries history and we did just fine. We had far fewer lib arts and far more real jobs and those real workers did far more for our country. I would take 20 low skilled laborers for every psychology major we graduated into a barista job any day. They will work harder and be far less full of bullshit.
That is the real problem here. We have taken the lower rungs of intelligence and drive, those that would have worked low skill but reasonably paying jobs and shoved them into shit degrees.
That might be the case, but I still want to get the best value back for all that I've already paid for.Government adds very little value.
-John
Is some somebody with a libarts degree really all that educated? Enough so that society is benefitted massively and they contribute all that much more?Wait you are really saying we did better when we educated our people less?
Nah, you can't include those without debt in our discussion. We are talking about the average debt for borrowers, not average debt of everyone including those without any debt. Those without debt likely got full-ride scholarships, rich parents paid, etc.
Looking at those numbers, 55% of borrowers have a debt of at least $20k. A full quarter of those borrowing are in debt $30k or more.
I'm not sure how this isn't an issue especially when it has been shown that people are having a harder time getting a job in their field out of college. When you pull back away from the percentages and look at the numbers of people coming out of schools with large amounts of debt then it starts to hit home.
That would mean 715,000 people graduating with a bachelors degree have at least $20k of debt before even starting the first day of their career. That absolutely has an impact on people.
Approximately 20-30% of the current direct loan portfolio is in Income Based Repayment. That means they pay me 10-15% (depending on program) income - 125% * federal poverty level.Approximately half of students at UC schools already receive scholarships and/or need-based support covering tuition and fees. At Ivy Leagues it's a large majority unless your parents are loaded. It's not like it's pure luck to receive these scholarships. Why shouldn't those count?
Sure, debt has an impact. How much of an impact? Who is getting by on only saltines in a cardboard box because of student loans? It's a matter of luxury and entitlement.
Well duh, you've already taken all their debt service capacity in non-bankruptable perpetuity, and now you're expecting them to buy homes and brand new cars? Seriously, buddy, you're the douchebag.Approximately 20-30% of the current direct loan portfolio is in Income Based Repayment. That means they pay me 10-15% (depending on program) income - 125% * federal poverty level.
Of that 20-30% we are collecting approximately 25% of payments required under normal payment terms. Some cases that is 15%
Despite this, the lifetime expected default rate is still around 20-30%. That is including generous deferment and forbearance terms.
On top of that there is indirect empirical evidence that there is a large shift going on in post bs borrower behavior. Vehicle purchases are down, household formation is down, parental living is way up, small business formation is down. This is having an effect.
They love them because population density.Vehicle purchases are down, so what? Americans already love cars too much. We certainly purchase more cars than Europeans do.
People should wait on having a stable career before forming a household. In the 70s when a guy could become a plumber or factory worker a couple of years after high school, that was easier to do. Now, we value jobs that require longer education and training before reaping the benefits. The only problem with waiting is that birth defects/Down's/etc become significantly higher for women in their late 30s/40s. That problem can be addressed separately, however.
America has one of the lowest rates of college students living with their parents, maybe the lowest. Who is to say that rate increasing is a bad thing when it's still far below European levels? The average Spanish or Italian student certainly doesn't have to worry about room & board like many Americans do.
Is there a clear link between student debt and small business formation? I haven't heard of that.
All of these changes are either non-issues or inevitabilities.
It is not dischargeable in bankruptcy... and the whole reason was a lie that doctors and lawyers were running up huge debt in the 1970s and filing bankruptcy to flush the debt.