2024 elections Congressional & State

[GannonFan]

The majority of college students go to public institutions so we haven't had "40 years of privatization and deregulation" in higher education. We have had heavy government involvement in financing higher education and what have been the results? Costs have gone up way faster than inflation and it isn't the evil capitalists/private sector's fault. Government involvement exacerbated a problem but more government involvement will fix it?

The GI Bill was in exchange for service. Free college tuition with no skin in the game on the part of the students is a recipe for exacerbating the problems even more. I'm all for expanding the GI Bill, Americorps and similar programs. I'm against free college without a corresponding service commitment.

To clarify…I was speaking of the private profit from lending.

It’s substantial.

https://protectborrowers.org/130-billion-psl-market/

As mentioned, I’m not a fan of the current system for the same reasons as you.

Not more but better government can help.

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

[UNI88]

The majority of college students go to public institutions so we haven't had "40 years of privatization and deregulation" in higher education. We have had heavy government involvement in financing higher education and what have been the results? Costs have gone up way faster than inflation and it isn't the evil capitalists/private sector's fault. Government involvement exacerbated a problem but more government involvement will fix it?

The GI Bill was in exchange for service. Free college tuition with no skin in the game on the part of the students is a recipe for exacerbating the problems even more. I'm all for expanding the GI Bill, Americorps and similar programs. I'm against free college without a corresponding service commitment.

To clarify…I was speaking of the private profit from lending.

It’s substantial.

https://protectborrowers.org/130-billion-psl-market/

As mentioned, I’m not a fan of the current system for the same reasons as you.

Not more but better government can help.

You have more faith in the government to improve the situation than I do. I think they'll just fvck it up more. Free college will waste money by students going to college who shouldn't and devalue the degree of students who graduate. Less government intervention would do more to alleviate the problem in the long term.

I have 3 kids. One is a college graduate, one is in college and one will be in college in the fall. My ex and I provide very little financial assistance so they all depend, have depended or will depend on loans to finance their education. 88.1 used private lending to cover the difference between his costs and what government loans plus scholarships covered. We looked at a variety of options and while not the same as a home or car loan they were not unreasonable.

Problems with student loan debt:

1. Students borrowing significant sums of money while pursuing degrees in fields that don't pay a lot. If the federal government hadn't gotten involved in and fvcked up college financing this wouldn't be as significant of an issue. The government is responsible for the reality that a liberal arts education is no longer cost effective for many students.
2. Cost should be a key factor when choosing a school. Students aren't entitled to go to the school that is their first choice. They might need to make a sacrifice and go to one that is less expensive and/or has a better aid package. Understanding this and learning to make smart decisions is part of growing up and something a parent/guardian should be teaching their kids.

IMO people (parents and students) get into trouble because they don't understand how loans work. People need to be better educated so they can be better consumers and make smarter decisions.

I'm more concerned about colleges keeping their administrative structure intact while trying to reduce costs by hiring more adjunct faculty and part-time professors than I am about the government using everyone's tax dollars to make college "free". I think that will have a greater long-term impact.

[kalm]

To clarify…I was speaking of the private profit from lending.

It’s substantial.

https://protectborrowers.org/130-billion-psl-market/

As mentioned, I’m not a fan of the current system for the same reasons as you.

Not more but better government can help.

You have more faith in the government to improve the situation than I do. I think they'll just fvck it up more. Free college will waste money by students going to college who shouldn't and devalue the degree of students who graduate. Less government intervention would do more to alleviate the problem in the long term.

I have 3 kids. One is a college graduate, one is in college and one will be in college in the fall. My ex and I provide very little financial assistance so they all depend, have depended or will depend on loans to finance their education. 88.1 used private lending to cover the difference between his costs and what government loans plus scholarships covered. We looked at a variety of options and while not the same as a home or car loan they were not unreasonable.

Problems with student loan debt:

1. Students borrowing significant sums of money while pursuing degrees in fields that don't pay a lot. If the federal government hadn't gotten involved in and fvcked up college financing this wouldn't be as significant of an issue. The government is responsible for the reality that a liberal arts education is no longer cost effective for many students.
2. Cost should be a key factor when choosing a school. Students aren't entitled to go to the school that is their first choice. They might need to make a sacrifice and go to one that is less expensive and/or has a better aid package. Understanding this and learning to make smart decisions is part of growing up and something a parent/guardian should be teaching their kids.

IMO people (parents and students) get into trouble because they don't understand how loans work. People need to be better educated so they can be better consumers and make smarter decisions.

I'm more concerned about colleges keeping their administrative structure intact while trying to reduce costs by hiring more adjunct faculty and part-time professors than I am about the government using everyone's tax dollars to make college "free". I think that will have a greater long-term impact.

Totally agree on that last paragraph.

[UNI88]

To clarify…I was speaking of the private profit from lending.

It’s substantial.

https://protectborrowers.org/130-billion-psl-market/

As mentioned, I’m not a fan of the current system for the same reasons as you.

Not more but better government can help.

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

That "substantial" 5% sliver of the market that grew by 71% is a problem but the gargantuan chunk that grew by 167% isn't?

[GannonFan]

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

That "substantial" 5% sliver of the market that grew by 71% is a problem but the gargantuan chunk that grew by 167% isn't?

Mark Twain (or someone else if not him) had it true - "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[kalm]

To clarify…I was speaking of the private profit from lending.

It’s substantial.

https://protectborrowers.org/130-billion-psl-market/

As mentioned, I’m not a fan of the current system for the same reasons as you.

Not more but better government can help.

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

Which one of these 2,000 points should I respond to?

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find I’ve already answered some of these questions.

Our peer countries are somehow figuring this out. I’ll add there should be more to higher Ed than subsidized job training…at least for those seeking it. Hell there needs to be more humanities, personal finance, and civics long before that.

Why do you hate a well and roundly educated workforce?

[UNI88]

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

Which one of these 2,000 points should I respond to?

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find I’ve already answered some of these questions.

Our peer countries are somehow figuring this out. I’ll add there should be more to higher Ed than subsidized job training…at least for those seeking it. Hell there needs to be more humanities, personal finance, and civics long before that.

Why do you hate a well and roundly educated workforce?

Ganny's post was cliff notes compared to JSO's voluminous manure that you love.

If the federal government hadn't gotten involved in and fvcked up college financing this wouldn't be as significant of an issue. The government is responsible for the reality that a liberal arts education is no longer cost effective for many students.

So yes, let's solve a problem that government involvement created by getting the government more involved. Makes perfect sense.

[GannonFan]

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

Which one of these 2,000 points should I respond to?

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find I’ve already answered some of these questions.

Our peer countries are somehow figuring this out. I’ll add there should be more to higher Ed than subsidized job training…at least for those seeking it. Hell there needs to be more humanities, personal finance, and civics long before that.

Why do you hate a well and roundly educated workforce?

Well, don't make crappy posts and I can be a lot more pithy.

The "long before that" is the part we've been talking about. Personal finance and civics, to the point that people need to learn, can be and often is already is covered ad nasuem in high school, and even middle school. I learned how to write a check in 8th grade. I learned how to budget money to pay for living expenses in high school. I learned a lot about civics starting all the way back in 5th grade and all the way through high school. And they're still teaching those things today. If you are advocating someone going to college to learn these things, and spend (either they spend or the collective rest of us spend) college tuition to learn those things then you're nuts. We collectively spend on public education through 12th grade and that's a great investment. We do NOT need to just keep spending on it collectively past that to teach those things. These are 18+ year olds, they should have already learned this in the previous 12 years.

As for the humanities versus subsidized job training, first of all, even 30 years ago, engineers took a fair amount of humanities work as part of their total load. Maybe houndy didn't in the 80's, but by the 90's and beyond that got better and better. Taking college tours now with my kids, some of whom are STEM focused, they'll have plenty of non-job training stuff they study along the way. And if you're really against this kind of subsidized job training, why oh why do you want even more job subsidization for more people?

I love a well and roundly educated workforce. That's why we have a public school system in this country. I don't see the value of wasting that workforce's time with even more education that they don't need just to satisfy the false premise of "if some government spending is good, then more government spending is automatically better". It's not. Heck, we are living through a lab experiment of exactly that right now with the transitional inflationary period we're struggling through. All those humanities you studied in college should've taught you that. Money well spent indeed.

[kalm]

Which one of these 2,000 points should I respond to?

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find I’ve already answered some of these questions.

Our peer countries are somehow figuring this out. I’ll add there should be more to higher Ed than subsidized job training…at least for those seeking it. Hell there needs to be more humanities, personal finance, and civics long before that.

Why do you hate a well and roundly educated workforce?

Well, don't make crappy posts and I can be a lot more pithy.

The "long before that" is the part we've been talking about. Personal finance and civics, to the point that people need to learn, can be and often is already is covered ad nasuem in high school, and even middle school. I learned how to write a check in 8th grade. I learned how to budget money to pay for living expenses in high school. I learned a lot about civics starting all the way back in 5th grade and all the way through high school. And they're still teaching those things today. If you are advocating someone going to college to learn these things, and spend (either they spend or the collective rest of us spend) college tuition to learn those things then you're nuts. We collectively spend on public education through 12th grade and that's a great investment. We do NOT need to just keep spending on it collectively past that to teach those things. These are 18+ year olds, they should have already learned this in the previous 12 years.

As for the humanities versus subsidized job training, first of all, even 30 years ago, engineers took a fair amount of humanities work as part of their total load. Maybe houndy didn't in the 80's, but by the 90's and beyond that got better and better. Taking college tours now with my kids, some of whom are STEM focused, they'll have plenty of non-job training stuff they study along the way. And if you're really against this kind of subsidized job training, why oh why do you want even more job subsidization for more people?

I love a well and roundly educated workforce. That's why we have a public school system in this country. I don't see the value of wasting that workforce's time with even more education that they don't need just to satisfy the false premise of "if some government spending is good, then more government spending is automatically better". It's not. Heck, we are living through a lab experiment of exactly that right now with the transitional inflationary period we're struggling through. All those humanities you studied in college should've taught you that. Money well spent indeed.

Hmmm…so an insult followed by another long polemic?

Fascinating how much effort you putting into this.

[kalm]

Which one of these 2,000 points should I respond to?

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find I’ve already answered some of these questions.

Our peer countries are somehow figuring this out. I’ll add there should be more to higher Ed than subsidized job training…at least for those seeking it. Hell there needs to be more humanities, personal finance, and civics long before that.

Why do you hate a well and roundly educated workforce?

Ganny's post was cliff notes compared to JSO's voluminous manure that you love.

If the federal government hadn't gotten involved in and fvcked up college financing this wouldn't be as significant of an issue. The government is responsible for the reality that a liberal arts education is no longer cost effective for many students.

So yes, let's solve a problem that government involvement created by getting the government more involved. Makes perfect sense.

So government alone is the cause of tuition costs? How do our peer countries spend less? What was tuition like before government caused the increase. And when did this go down?

[UNI88]

Ganny's post was cliff notes compared to JSO's voluminous manure that you love.

So yes, let's solve a problem that government involvement created by getting the government more involved. Makes perfect sense.

So government alone is the cause of tuition costs? How do our peer countries spend less? What was tuition like before government caused the increase. And when did this go down?

Did I say that it was government alone? No. Did the government play a major role? Yes and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the New York Fed agrees with me.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

We study the link between the student credit expansion of the past fifteen years and the contemporaneous rise in college tuition. To disentangle simultaneity issues, we analyze the effects of increases in federal student loan caps using detailed student-level financial data. We find a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar, and smaller but positive effects for unsubsidized federal loans. The subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for more expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.

[GannonFan]

Well, don't make crappy posts and I can be a lot more pithy.

The "long before that" is the part we've been talking about. Personal finance and civics, to the point that people need to learn, can be and often is already is covered ad nasuem in high school, and even middle school. I learned how to write a check in 8th grade. I learned how to budget money to pay for living expenses in high school. I learned a lot about civics starting all the way back in 5th grade and all the way through high school. And they're still teaching those things today. If you are advocating someone going to college to learn these things, and spend (either they spend or the collective rest of us spend) college tuition to learn those things then you're nuts. We collectively spend on public education through 12th grade and that's a great investment. We do NOT need to just keep spending on it collectively past that to teach those things. These are 18+ year olds, they should have already learned this in the previous 12 years.

As for the humanities versus subsidized job training, first of all, even 30 years ago, engineers took a fair amount of humanities work as part of their total load. Maybe houndy didn't in the 80's, but by the 90's and beyond that got better and better. Taking college tours now with my kids, some of whom are STEM focused, they'll have plenty of non-job training stuff they study along the way. And if you're really against this kind of subsidized job training, why oh why do you want even more job subsidization for more people?

I love a well and roundly educated workforce. That's why we have a public school system in this country. I don't see the value of wasting that workforce's time with even more education that they don't need just to satisfy the false premise of "if some government spending is good, then more government spending is automatically better". It's not. Heck, we are living through a lab experiment of exactly that right now with the transitional inflationary period we're struggling through. All those humanities you studied in college should've taught you that. Money well spent indeed.

Hmmm…so an insult followed by another long polemic?

Fascinating how much effort you putting into this.

I type really quickly. Potentially faster than you read and comprehend, so I do apologize for that. I'll keep that in mind for future posts, I do try to be kind to those less fortunate.

[GannonFan]

So government alone is the cause of tuition costs? How do our peer countries spend less? What was tuition like before government caused the increase. And when did this go down?

Did I say that it was government alone? No. Did the government play a major role? Yes and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the New York Fed agrees with me.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

We study the link between the student credit expansion of the past fifteen years and the contemporaneous rise in college tuition. To disentangle simultaneity issues, we analyze the effects of increases in federal student loan caps using detailed student-level financial data. We find a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar, and smaller but positive effects for unsubsidized federal loans. The subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for more expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.

Oh snap!

[kalm]

So government alone is the cause of tuition costs? How do our peer countries spend less? What was tuition like before government caused the increase. And when did this go down?

Did I say that it was government alone? No. Did the government play a major role? Yes and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the New York Fed agrees with me.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

We study the link between the student credit expansion of the past fifteen years and the contemporaneous rise in college tuition. To disentangle simultaneity issues, we analyze the effects of increases in federal student loan caps using detailed student-level financial data. We find a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar, and smaller but positive effects for unsubsidized federal loans. The subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for more expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.

Again…I have issues with the current student loan system the same as you. Greed isn’t just found in the private sector.

What if we remove the loan part of the equation?

We should look further at strengthening educational requirements to achieve higher ed entrance and encouraging non-academic types into the trades, etc.

There’s also the added component of working class wages. They are not enough to keep up with the Jones’s while paying off loans. Living within one’s means alone doesn’t solve this pickle.

We all want the same thing. Limited government, high standard of living for all, and as highly educated a population as possible. Neo-liberalism in all its various forms from Reagan through Biden have underachieved.

[kalm]

Hmmm…so an insult followed by another long polemic?

Fascinating how much effort you putting into this.

I type really quickly. Potentially faster than you read and comprehend, so I do apologize for that. I'll keep that in mind for future posts, I do try to be kind to those less fortunate.

Ahhh…you typed really fast?!?

[GannonFan]

Did I say that it was government alone? No. Did the government play a major role? Yes and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the New York Fed agrees with me.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

Again…I have issues with the current student loan system the same as you. Greed isn’t just found in the private sector.

What if we remove the loan part of the equation?

We should look further at strengthening educational requirements to achieve higher ed entrance and encouraging non-academic types into the trades, etc.

There’s also the added component of working class wages. They are not enough to keep up with the Jones’s while paying off loans. Living within one’s means alone doesn’t solve this pickle.

We all want the same thing. Limited government, high standard of living for all, and as highly educated a population as possible. Neo-liberalism in all its various forms from Reagan through Biden have underachieved.

What's your proposal about wages and how government is going to solve that? The moment you artificially interfere with wages you cause the system to react. There's a reason why minimum wages always lag relevant to prevailing wages - it's called economics. If you raise the minimum wage, there's more money in the money supply. That means more money that can be spent, but without any increase in the goods and services that can be bought. More money chasing the same goods and services means that the selling price of those goods and services increase. So you raise minimum wage, and now the inflationary pressure of those changes means that the buying power of that extra boost in wages is offset by the costs. Nothing actually changes in the end other than a quicker than normal inflationary boost. How are you proposing government handle this? You're quick to criticize but downright sloth-like to propose solutions.

[Winterborn]

To clarify…I was speaking of the private profit from lending.

It’s substantial.

https://protectborrowers.org/130-billion-psl-market/

As mentioned, I’m not a fan of the current system for the same reasons as you.

Not more but better government can help.

Private profit from lending? Come on, that article you posted was great for throwing out percentages, but what it didn't say was that private loans make up about 5% of the total market of student loans, by dollar amount. Sure, it's not nothing, but it pales in comparison to the federal student loans. If the smaller one is "substantial", can we call the government student loans "gargantuan"?

Next, your GI Bill callback (I love when you jump back to the halcyon years of the 1940's and '50's - it's almost a dog whistle that you're making stuff up again) is a red herring if there ever was one. The GI Bill certainly played a part in boosting productivity and output, but even more so was the fact that we just came out of the Great Depression and, for a good decade at least, we were the only real industrialized nation of any size that was still left standing and intact after the war. We had little competition because the competition was picking itself out of literal rubble.

In addition, the GI Bill corrected a problem that doesn't exist anymore - a lot of those GI's got an education which was great, because so many of them and their generation didn't even finish high school back then. We all have stories of grandparents (and I guess great grandparents for the young guys now) who were forced to leave school sometime after age 12 because they had to help make money to put food on the table. It was widespread and it was a major detriment to the education of those kids who had to leave school so early. The GI Bill worked to fill that gap in their schooling - sure, it was mostly at the college level, but many of those GI's didn't need high school diplomas to use the GI benefits at colleges (then as now, colleges never turned down free money from the government) and the GI Bill gave that them education. Today, although there are folks that don't finish high school, it's miniscule to what it was back then. We're already getting the benefit, and much more so, than what the GI Bill gave us.

And lastly, you keep saying "targetted" government spending - just spend it better. On what though? What schooling post 12th grade does everyone need? There's a reason we stop at 12th grade (and why many other industrial nations don't even go that far for everyone) - eventually, there's very little ROI on everyone getting some additional education. It's why parents tell their kids to major in something they can be employed in and preferably make decent money in once they graduate. There are many majors that don't do that, no matter how much you spend government money on those majors. What's the point of pouring more money into things that already don't have an ROI on? If there's something super important that we're not getting into kids now, we should focus on that HS cirriculum rather than pumping money into the college market, which is really what we've already been doing for at least 20-30 years now.

Well said.

[Winterborn]

Which one of these 2,000 points should I respond to?

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find I’ve already answered some of these questions.

Our peer countries are somehow figuring this out. I’ll add there should be more to higher Ed than subsidized job training…at least for those seeking it. Hell there needs to be more humanities, personal finance, and civics long before that.

Why do you hate a well and roundly educated workforce?

Ganny's post was cliff notes compared to JSO's voluminous manure that you love.

If the federal government hadn't gotten involved in and fvcked up college financing this wouldn't be as significant of an issue. The government is responsible for the reality that a liberal arts education is no longer cost effective for many students.

So yes, let's solve a problem that government involvement created by getting the government more involved. Makes perfect sense.

This in a nut shell.

All hail the almighty government......

[Winterborn]

Well, don't make crappy posts and I can be a lot more pithy.

The "long before that" is the part we've been talking about. Personal finance and civics, to the point that people need to learn, can be and often is already is covered ad nasuem in high school, and even middle school. I learned how to write a check in 8th grade. I learned how to budget money to pay for living expenses in high school. I learned a lot about civics starting all the way back in 5th grade and all the way through high school. And they're still teaching those things today. If you are advocating someone going to college to learn these things, and spend (either they spend or the collective rest of us spend) college tuition to learn those things then you're nuts. We collectively spend on public education through 12th grade and that's a great investment. We do NOT need to just keep spending on it collectively past that to teach those things. These are 18+ year olds, they should have already learned this in the previous 12 years.

As for the humanities versus subsidized job training, first of all, even 30 years ago, engineers took a fair amount of humanities work as part of their total load. Maybe houndy didn't in the 80's, but by the 90's and beyond that got better and better. Taking college tours now with my kids, some of whom are STEM focused, they'll have plenty of non-job training stuff they study along the way. And if you're really against this kind of subsidized job training, why oh why do you want even more job subsidization for more people?

I love a well and roundly educated workforce. That's why we have a public school system in this country. I don't see the value of wasting that workforce's time with even more education that they don't need just to satisfy the false premise of "if some government spending is good, then more government spending is automatically better". It's not. Heck, we are living through a lab experiment of exactly that right now with the transitional inflationary period we're struggling through. All those humanities you studied in college should've taught you that. Money well spent indeed.

Hmmm…so an insult followed by another long polemic?

Fascinating how much effort you putting into this.

Personally I thought Ganny's response was well stated. Not his fault you're stubborn and don't like to admit when you are wrong.

[Winterborn]

So government alone is the cause of tuition costs? How do our peer countries spend less? What was tuition like before government caused the increase. And when did this go down?

Did I say that it was government alone? No. Did the government play a major role? Yes and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the New York Fed agrees with me.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

We study the link between the student credit expansion of the past fifteen years and the contemporaneous rise in college tuition. To disentangle simultaneity issues, we analyze the effects of increases in federal student loan caps using detailed student-level financial data. We find a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar, and smaller but positive effects for unsubsidized federal loans. The subsidized loan effect is most pronounced for more expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.

It is just basic economics not rocket science.

[Winterborn]

Did I say that it was government alone? No. Did the government play a major role? Yes and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the New York Fed agrees with me.

Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

Again…I have issues with the current student loan system the same as you. Greed isn’t just found in the private sector.

What if we remove the loan part of the equation?

We should look further at strengthening educational requirements to achieve higher ed entrance and encouraging non-academic types into the trades, etc.

There’s also the added component of working class wages. They are not enough to keep up with the Jones’s while paying off loans. Living within one’s means alone doesn’t solve this pickle.

We all want the same thing. Limited government, high standard of living for all, and as highly educated a population as possible. Neo-liberalism in all its various forms from Reagan through Biden have underachieved.

Your second and third paragraphs implementation (based on your past posts) are in conflict with your "Limited government" statement. So far you advocate for reducing spending in some areas (military, etc) but ballooning spending elsewhere (social) which would increase the administrative state.

[kalm]

Again…I have issues with the current student loan system the same as you. Greed isn’t just found in the private sector.

What if we remove the loan part of the equation?

We should look further at strengthening educational requirements to achieve higher ed entrance and encouraging non-academic types into the trades, etc.

There’s also the added component of working class wages. They are not enough to keep up with the Jones’s while paying off loans. Living within one’s means alone doesn’t solve this pickle.

We all want the same thing. Limited government, high standard of living for all, and as highly educated a population as possible. Neo-liberalism in all its various forms from Reagan through Biden have underachieved.

Your second and third paragraphs implementation (based on your past posts) are in conflict with your "Limited government" statement. So far you advocate for reducing spending in some areas (military, etc) but ballooning spending elsewhere (social) which would increase the administrative state.

Well that’s pretty much the debate and we have a broken system.

I’m open to privatization if and when it is proven to increase the public good and be more efficient. Both (administrative state and libertarian free for all) provide a choice on how to organize society, spend public dollars, and utilize the commons. Only one does so democratically, and humans are a social ape. A balance between the two results in a mixed economy which is what every industrialized nation from China and Russia to Finland and the U.S. have become.

My main issue is the corruption cooked into the system that allows capture of the administrative state by non-democratic private interests.

[kalm]

Again…I have issues with the current student loan system the same as you. Greed isn’t just found in the private sector.

What if we remove the loan part of the equation?

We should look further at strengthening educational requirements to achieve higher ed entrance and encouraging non-academic types into the trades, etc.

There’s also the added component of working class wages. They are not enough to keep up with the Jones’s while paying off loans. Living within one’s means alone doesn’t solve this pickle.

We all want the same thing. Limited government, high standard of living for all, and as highly educated a population as possible. Neo-liberalism in all its various forms from Reagan through Biden have underachieved.

What's your proposal about wages and how government is going to solve that? The moment you artificially interfere with wages you cause the system to react. There's a reason why minimum wages always lag relevant to prevailing wages - it's called economics. If you raise the minimum wage, there's more money in the money supply. That means more money that can be spent, but without any increase in the goods and services that can be bought. More money chasing the same goods and services means that the selling price of those goods and services increase. So you raise minimum wage, and now the inflationary pressure of those changes means that the buying power of that extra boost in wages is offset by the costs. Nothing actually changes in the end other than a quicker than normal inflationary boost. How are you proposing government handle this? You're quick to criticize but downright sloth-like to propose solutions.

Because every solution including any you might propose can be picked apart. (BTW…feel free to post your solutions). There are no perfect solutions and I’m not necessarily suggesting government should try or can provide a solution. It was more a commentary than a prescription and I was referring mostly to working class wages.

But since we’re at it, why can’t goods and services expand alongside wages? Maybe even create demand for new goods and services?

At some point, does the working class decide rather than spend excess wages on goods and services, decide to save and invest for retirement, end of life healthcare services, passing on a small inheritance, philanthropy, etc? Or does it always have to drive up inflation?

[Winterborn]

Your second and third paragraphs implementation (based on your past posts) are in conflict with your "Limited government" statement. So far you advocate for reducing spending in some areas (military, etc) but ballooning spending elsewhere (social) which would increase the administrative state.

Well that’s pretty much the debate and we have a broken system.

I’m open to privatization if and when it is proven to increase the public good and be more efficient. Both (administrative state and libertarian free for all) provide a choice on how to organize society, spend public dollars, and utilize the commons. Only one does so democratically, and humans are a social ape. A balance between the two results in a mixed economy which is what every industrialized nation from China and Russia to Finland and the U.S. have become.

My main issue is the corruption cooked into the system that allows capture of the administrative state by non-democratic private interests.

We have a market economy here in the U.S., it is not a mixed one like China and Russia, etc.

Allowing people the freedom to make their own choices will always be more efficient than trying to force a regimented system on a diverse population (extra steps always increase inefficiency). The trick is giving as much freedom as possible while supplying a framework that business can operate in on a even basis.

It is basically the argument of socialism vs. capitalism.

And your last sentence is interesting. You believe one system is less corrupt than the other, whereas I believe that as long as there are people involved, there will be corruption (both sides are equally corrupt). That corruption goes both ways and what I believe the bigger issue is that while the public side has checks and balance due to competition, the administrative state does not have those checks and balances because it basically functions as a pure monopoly. Except it has the absolute power to punish those it deems contrary to their authority. History has taught us that absolute authority will corrupt absolutely. And what is more powerful than a bureaucrat that basically can't be fired and is not accountable to any outside organization?

[kalm]

Well that’s pretty much the debate and we have a broken system.

I’m open to privatization if and when it is proven to increase the public good and be more efficient. Both (administrative state and libertarian free for all) provide a choice on how to organize society, spend public dollars, and utilize the commons. Only one does so democratically, and humans are a social ape. A balance between the two results in a mixed economy which is what every industrialized nation from China and Russia to Finland and the U.S. have become.

My main issue is the corruption cooked into the system that allows capture of the administrative state by non-democratic private interests.

We have a market economy here in the U.S., it is not a mixed one like China and Russia, etc.

Allowing people the freedom to make their own choices will always be more efficient than trying to force a regimented system on a diverse population (extra steps always increase inefficiency). The trick is giving as much freedom as possible while supplying a framework that business can operate in on a even basis.

It is basically the argument of socialism vs. capitalism.

And your last sentence is interesting. You believe one system is less corrupt than the other, whereas I believe that as long as there are people involved, there will be corruption (both sides are equally corrupt). That corruption goes both ways and what I believe the bigger issue is that while the public side has checks and balance due to competition, the administrative state does not have those checks and balances because it basically functions as a pure monopoly. Except it has the absolute power to punish those it deems contrary to their authority. History has taught us that absolute authority will corrupt absolutely. And what is more powerful than a bureaucrat that basically can't be fired and is not accountable to any outside organization?

We are a mixed, market economy like everyone else. It’s not even debatable. It’s similar to the We are not a democracy, we are a Republic” thought virus. The differences we are debating lie in the degree and mixture.

The check on the administrative state is democracy. That’s why democracy is so damn crucial. Suppression of democracy is what leads to authoritarianism be it from the left (communism/socialism) or the right (corporatism/fascism)

The market is only a check if it’s a truly competitive market. Monopolistic practices, government capture, oligarchy. Regulation is the safety check.

The middle is the way but it’s contingent on effective and fair government.