Plan B Forum

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:43 pm

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:20 pm

Wanker.

That's better!

And Guin, your incomprehension of a joke is noted

Weak, Meade. “It was just a joke” means it is never just a joke.

Guin, you're ok. I would never say about you, specially when you are not present, "God bless your little heart".

Rubato, I think you re confusing education and job training.

Interesting how, here in the land of opportunity, in the last year so many jobs that do not pay a living wage, are now declared 'essential.'

snailgate

Guinevere wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:45 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:43 pm

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:20 pm

Wanker.

That's better!

And Guin, your incomprehension of a joke is noted

Weak, Meade. “It was just a joke” means it is never just a joke.

Your clever addition of the word "just" is noted.

It was "a" jocular remark, as was the starving artist comment. However, now you mention it . . .

As for pitting college/university versus the trades, that’s bullshit. Everyone should have the opportunity to go to the place that fits them best, all are necessary, and all have value.

It's not pitting, it's vetting. Part of the problem is that young people in high school get very little in counseling that could benefit in making a proper choice of careers. My high school counselors were lazy fucks who offered nothing. There needs to be a graphic explanation of the long term benefits and deficits concerning debt accrual and short and long term ability to pay. Too many head off to college and do not finish and are left with debt. Not everyone should go to college and those who should not need to be educated as to why it is a bad idea (statistical probabilities of drop out) and what their alternatives could be particularly going into a trade. The root of the issue needs to be addressed.

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:33 pm

Not everyone should go to college and those who should not need to be educated as to why it is a bad idea (statistical probabilities of drop out) and what their alternatives could be particularly going into a trade. The root of the issue needs to be addressed.

Another BIG part of the problem is employers' demands for a bachelor's degree as a minimum credential for many, many jobs which don't, in fact, require the use of the knowledge gained in the acquisition of such a degree.

TPFKA@W wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:33 pm

Not everyone should go to college and those who should not need to be educated as to why it is a bad idea (statistical probabilities of drop out) and what their alternatives could be particularly going into a trade.

How many people are there who actually fit that category? How many students majoring in Slovenian literature or Viking philosophy or whatever could you find who could realistically say, "I would happily have become a pipefitter or a crane operator if only someone had been there to make me see the light"?

Not to many of those but nurses and engineers on the other hand...

Not to mention business degrees

How many students majoring in Slovenian literature or Viking philosophy or whatever could you find who could realistically say, "I would happily have become a pipefitter or a crane operator if only someone had been there to make me see the light"?

I have no idea and lost my soothsayers license in 2008. I am guessing that by age 32 the Viking philosopher wishes someone had explained debt ramification better before he was allowed to go full steam into financial ruin.

Biden wants to forgive $10k and Schumer&Friends want to forgive $30K, when your debt is $150K. Whoopty do. The need to teach fiscal responsibility and the ramifications is as important as teaching safe sex education and the ramifications.
.

I think some sort of teaching about the effects of debt could help most high schoolers considering college. The colleges and universities insist that they are not employment or trade schools, but then charge high prices, and encourage students to take on debt to pay them, like they are (and that the graduates will make enough to pay the loans off). Sure, there are benefits, to the person and society at large, in acquiring a higher education, but it does not necessarily translate into better jobs and higher pay. Potential students should be taught to see themselves as consumers; they should be paying for something they want and understand the costs. But, honestly, I think that's the last thing universities want.

And FWIW, I really don't understand the high costs. When I was an adjunct professor at a local university teaching graduate courses (in the evening), I would generally have 40-50 students in my class and the tuition of any one student was more than my pay for the entire course (including employer payroll taxes; I got no benefits). I never knew where the rest went, but assuming the tuition of even another 20 students (and that is a huge amount) went to general administrative expenses and overhead , there was still a lot of pure profit. But so long as the students could get loans (or their employers paid the tuition--pretty common for part time study), it just continues.

How does it make any sense to convert some amount of personal debt willingly incurred into a grant, for everyone? We already have student loan forgiveness programs that have a trade off of public service for debt payment. If these type of programs need to be expanded to allow greater participation, that might be acceptable. But just giving $10,000 or whatever amount to anyone who incurred debt is indefensible. Those of us who paid back our loans should get a rebate of the same amount, more actually, for being responsible.

I'm not sure what happened to student loans during the pandemics, but I believe the banks and other loan agencies did not collect anything during the pandemic (for federally subsidized loans at least)--not sure about the interest, but it may have been suspended as well (if it was, the federal government might well have made it up). But now we have a group of loan recipients who are a year behind in their payments, yest still have to pay the loans off within the original term, which would be difficult for most, if not impossible for some (for a loan with a 10 year term, payments will increase by 10%, something many could not easily absorb given the state of the economy). It could make it very difficult to repay them (and don't forget, unlike all of Trump's loans, student loans are generally not discharged in bankruptcy). I imagine legislation could be passed to extend the term/waive the late fees and interest, but forgiving some of the debt may help more directly.

Has there been a single proposal to target only those who have been impacted by the lockdown (which will be a small portion of the 45 million with student loan debt or 22 million with direct govt. loans), as opposed to wiping out debt for everyone?

And it is worth noting that most borrowers have a reasonable amount of debt, that the vast majority can figure out how to get paid off. And those with large balances tend to be professionals who will have or have high paying jobs, and can similarly pay off their debt. The debt forgiveness proposal is just an obvious attempt to buy votes, because it makes no sense as a public policy.

Some of my wifes student loans got interest and payments deferred others didn’t.

I think it would make better sense to change the bankruptcy laws and make that debt as dischargeable as any other debt, but I don't think we'll see that; when a low income person goes bankrupt people claim they're cheating the system; when serial filers like Trump and others do it, they're just being smart.

Looking at that chart, even a $10,000 forgiveness will do a great deal of good for the overwhelming majority.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:32 pm

I think it would make better sense to change the bankruptcy laws and make that debt as dischargeable as any other debt,

Could not agree more, at least with respect to private loans.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:41 pm

Looking at that chart, even a $10,000 forgiveness will do a great deal of good for the overwhelming majority.

In a country of 330 million people, there are a strong majority who could have a great deal of good come from $10,000 of debt relief, whether it is a car loan they needed to take out so they can have reliable transportation, medical debt, home improvement debt to make room for a new baby, debt incurred by being off work due to a pregnancy, illness, injury or government mandated shutdown, etc., etc. What is the rationale for favoring those who have student loan debt, especially when most of them are more than capable of paying off their loans, and most have already received substantial subsidies that reduce the cost of their education?

The difference being that this is debt that government actually has it within its power to forgive, and it is government that had a major hand in contributing to its predatory nature.

Big RR wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:32 pm

I think it would make better sense to change the bankruptcy laws and make that debt as dischargeable as any other debt, but I don't think we'll see that; when a low income person goes bankrupt people claim they're cheating the system; when serial filers like Trump and others do it, they're just being smart.

That makes a lot of sense. And it puts the onus where it belongs, on the lenders who finance stupid loan debt. People who borrow for a degree in "womyns studies" or the like deserve to pay for their idiocy. And idiots who give loans for such idiocy deserve to pay.



yrs,
rubato