US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

So I never went to uni but I’d have to pay for others to go?

exactly! It's utterly insane.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not sure that forgiving loans creates a "moral hazard" for most, as in, that debt means nothing, but I agree 100% that unless you effect real change at the level of the cost of higher education, you do nothing to solve the problem. Do we just forgive student loans forever?

I'm not trying to be insulting... but do you understand the concept of moral hazard?

As to the rest, students who choose to go to university should do so with purpose. Don't go there to study 'the cultural bias of baking cakes' or some such nonsense. Go and learn something that's actually going to help you earn money. If you choose to do some flaky nonsense and get into debt, why is that anyone else's problem but yours?

 

[tented]

Forgiving student debt would seem to be unfair to the rest of the population, including former students who have already paid their debt,

Fair point. I’d be angry if I had paid back thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, only to discover the new generation of college students are having their debt eliminated.

but most especially people who haven’t gone to uni and are stuck with the bill.

This is trickier from a tax allocation perspective. I‘m sure there are plenty of roads, bridges, and other forms of infrastructure you have never used — maybe never even seen — yet your tax dollars have paid for them. Would you say “I haven’t even gone to X place, but I’m stuck with the bill.” Or, an example from my own life, I don’t have children, yet pay taxes to fund the schools. Should I be exempt from paying school taxes because Ive never had kids?

I mean, the uni still has to get paid, no?

Yes, but the big issue is the astronomical rate of inflation for colleges, some of which have endowments in the tens if not hundreds of millions dollar range. Colleges began hiking up their prices when the idea of student loans got going. When they realized people could borrow the money, they knew they could charge more than if they had to rely on people paying cash.

 

[Federberg]

Fair point. I’d be angry if I had paid back thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, only to discover the new generation of college students are having their debt eliminated.



This is trickier from a tax allocation perspective. I‘m sure there are plenty of roads, bridges, and other forms of infrastructure you have never used — maybe never even seen — yet your tax dollars have paid for them. Would you say “I haven’t even gone to X place, but I’m stuck with the bill.” Or, an example from my own life, I don’t have children, yet pay taxes to fund the schools. Should I be exempt from paying school taxes because Ive never had kids?



Yes, but the big issue is the astronomical rate of inflation for colleges, some of which have endowments in the tens if not hundreds of millions dollar range. Colleges began hiking up their prices when the idea of student loans got going. When they realized people could borrow the money, they knew they could charge more than if they had to rely on people paying cash.

and from what I hear, universities like Stanford are hiring more administrative staff... i.e., not professors.. They're not improving their product

 

[Kieran]

This is trickier from a tax allocation perspective. I‘m sure there are plenty of roads, bridges, and other forms of infrastructure you have never used — maybe never even seen — yet your tax dollars have paid for them. Would you say “I haven’t even gone to X place, but I’m stuck with the bill.” Or, an example from my own life, I don’t have children, yet pay taxes to fund the schools. Should I be exempt from paying school taxes because Ive never had kids?

I think bridges etc are infrastructure, and so they’re necessary for society. Schools? You went to school, right?

Students? Particularly indoctrinated students who come out of uni hating the people who gave them the luxury of a worthless education in social sciences or something?

That’s a personal choice. Let them pay for it.

Yes, but the big issue is the astronomical rate of inflation for colleges, some of which have endowments in the tens if not hundreds of millions dollar range. Colleges began hiking up their prices when the idea of student loans got going. When they realized people could borrow the money, they knew they could charge more than if they had to rely on people paying cash.

I totally agree there’s a scam happening. It’s scandalous. Should I pay for it?

Nah!

 

[Kieran]

I'm not trying to be insulting... but do you understand the concept of moral hazard?

As to the rest, students who choose to go to university should do so with purpose. Don't go there to study 'the cultural bias of baking cakes' or some such nonsense. Go and learn something that's actually going to help you earn money. If you choose to do some flaky nonsense and get into debt, why is that anyone else's problem but yours?

Exactly! Your local plumber or road sweeper contributes so much more to society than most kids who go to uni, especially the ones who drop out but still get the plumbers to take up the tab?

That’s akin to socialism, and so it’s fundamentally unfair..

 

[tented]

Schools? You went to school, right?

Yes, of course, and therefore my parents paid the school tax. I don’t have kids, so why should I pay for other people’s kids to go to school? Let the parents pay.

 

[tented]

and from what I hear, universities like Stanford are hiring more administrative staff... i.e., not professors.. They're not improving their product

That’s an excellent point. Many of these institutions have become ridiculously top-heavy, paying hundreds of thousands each year to these administrators who don’t seem to do much beyond collecting their checks.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, of course, and therefore my parents paid the school tax. I don’t have kids, so why should I pay for other people’s kids to go to school? Let the parents pay.

Because you want to live in a society where people have access to basic health and education? But university-level education is a choice for the individual when they get old enough to know what they want.

Largely nowadays universities in the west are breeding grounds for ignorant activists and bad left wing ideas. So let them pay for that themselves. They’re being educated to be more stupid than they were when they went in.

But you do hit on something I’m coming more and more to think should be possible, that in your tax returns you ought to be given a choice on what they’re spent on. For instance a chunk needs to go into useful society structures and infrastructures, then after this you have the option on whether you want any of it to go to paying for abortion, single mother allowances, trans abuse, and other things which are based on a persons individual choices, and which can be paid for without bothering the taxpayer…

 

[shawnbm]

Brother Kieran ^ that is wishful thinking--the progressives will never permit such a rational approach as that would stymie their whole world view and politic. In USA, college/university is looked at more and more, me thinks, as a natural rite of passage, as if it were an appendage to high school (secondary school in your lexicon). It was not always that way and for many lower middle class and those lower on the socioeconomic pole it is still a privilege and honor to go to "uni" as you call it. Yet, simultaneously over the last few decades, schools in USA have CEASED offering classes like civics, home economics and shop, where ladies and gents can learn other skills and trades if they are thinking of being a homemaker or working as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, mason, etc. Can't find that many places these days for those who can't qualify and/or pay for a college education or are simply not interested in such.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not trying to be insulting... but do you understand the concept of moral hazard?

You know, when you say "not trying to be insulting," it's insulting. You could just clarify your meaning, since apparently it was a specific economics term, and I'm not an economist.

 

[Federberg]

You know, when you say "not trying to be insulting," it's insulting. You could just clarify your meaning, since apparently it was a specific economics term, and I'm not an economist.

and if I had done that, no doubt I would have been mans-plaining? Be honest...

 

[Moxie]

and if I had done that, no doubt I would have been mans-plaining? Be honest...

I just asked for clarification. One can't win! The words moral and hazard can be put together in a way that a non-economist might interpret in a certain way. If they make up a jargon in your field, I think it would be kind to clarify. It's not "man-splaining" to be clear on terms. Don't assume that everyone works in your field.

 

[Federberg]

I just asked for clarification. One can't win! The words moral and hazard can be put together in a way that a non-economist might interpret in a certain way. If they make up a jargon in your field, I think it would be kind to clarify. It's not "man-splaining" to be clear on terms. Don't assume that everyone works in your field.

Google it

 

[Moxie]

Google it

I did. I still think you could do with explaining this for the laymen, or just plain illuminating within: "Not only does it not solve the problem it creates a moral hazard that in the longer term leads to even higher debt." Forgive me if everyone else understood in a way that I didn't, but I didn't notice any responses to that point either. What's so hard about expounding upon the point?

 

[Moxie]

Yes, of course, and therefore my parents paid the school tax. I don’t have kids, so why should I pay for other people’s kids to go to school? Let the parents pay.

Here I think you're being ironic. We don't have to have children to pay taxes for schooling as a common good. Even for higher education, at least to some extent. We're all better off with an educated society. The opposite argument is to let public school fall fallow and give parents grants to put them in private/parochial schools. That is a terrible idea. Everyone should be entitled to a good education, at least through high school, and paid for by all. I still think we can stake them at least to 2 years of local college.

 

[tented]

Here I think you're being ironic. We don't have to have children to pay taxes for schooling as a common good. Even for higher education, at least to some extent. We're all better off with an educated society. The opposite argument is to let public school fall fallow and give parents grants to put them in private/parochial schools. That is a terrible idea. Everyone should be entitled to a good education, at least through high school, and paid for by all. I still think we can stake them at least to 2 years of local college.

Bingo. Of course I‘m pro-education and realize taxes are needed to pay for public education. Private schools (in the US) are, in general, not up to the standards of public schools. This lesson became writ large for me over the past year, when my nephew — who had absolutely zero experience in teaching, and no relevant training — was hired to teach at a private school. I was flabbergasted. I assumed they had the funds to hire the best teachers, not the worst.

 

[tented]

I'm not trying to be insulting... but do you understand the concept of moral hazard?

Ok, I’ll bite.

Here the OED’s entry:

And here’s Wikipedia’s definition:

In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to riskbecause it does not bear the full costs of that risk. For example, when a corporation is insured, it may take on higher risk knowing that its insurance will pay the associated costs. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of the risk-taking party change to the detriment of the cost-bearing party after a financial transaction has taken place.

Now, do either of these examples help us discuss it the way in which you’re using it?

 

[Federberg]

Ok, I’ll bite.

Here the OED’s entry:

View attachment 8936

And here’s Wikipedia’s definition:

In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to riskbecause it does not bear the full costs of that risk. For example, when a corporation is insured, it may take on higher risk knowing that its insurance will pay the associated costs. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of the risk-taking party change to the detriment of the cost-bearing party after a financial transaction has taken place.

Now, do either of these examples help us discuss it the way in which you’re using it?

lol! Yes of course. In more than one way...

• if potential students think there's a possibility that their loans will be cancelled they'll be less incentivised to spend money judiciously, with less consideration for whether their degrees are actually financially beneficial for them

• if universities recognise that student debts will be written off, they'll be incentivised to raise their fees, without actually making their products a value proposition

I'm sure I could think of even more ways, given time, but even the most left wing leftie should recognise that neither of those scenarios are beneficial for the economy or even basic justice in the longer term (not that I'm calling you @tented ) a leftie

 

[Federberg]

^these are basic economic concepts. Honestly didn't think I was digging deep into theory. Truth be told, this stuff is more likely to be in the first chapter of a high school level economics book that it almost falls under common sense. I'm shocked it merited so much debate...

And I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm genuinely surprised.

PS, I know you won't get your knickers in a twist @tented. You don't do the over-sensitivity thing...