All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[PaulBullion]

It's probably about both, as well as ego.

With the forty hour workweek, everyone who was working during the same time was treated the same.

With a cancellation of debt, someone who went to college ten years ago and did the right thing (paid off as much of their debt as possible) gets less than a classmate who did the wrong thing (delayed paying off their debt.) It's punishing people who acted responsibly.

It's also a signal to people who owe student loans to put off paying for it as long as possible because an executive order might eliminate much of the debt.

Someone who was 5 years away from retiring profited less from the 40 hour workweek than somebody who just started the job. It's the exact same thing.

[Jack Dracula]

I can appreciate that.

There are all sorts of tradeoffs. There is also a bit of a class element, in the idea that student debt would be repaid for college students, but that blue-collar workers won't be compensated for the professional investments they made (IE- the purchase of a truck.)

There can also be a system where public sector employees get some money back, instead of blanket forgiveness.

It's certainly possible that they don't think their plan will go though, but it sends a bad signal to the people who don't know better, that they should put off paying their debts.

Tools and supplies purchases made for business reasons can be turned in for tax reduction each year so that doesn't apply. Business owners should be making their investments back in profit over time and employees should be getting it back in wages. If not, they may want to find other work.

Well, let's say the student debt forgiveness did happen. What then?
Those people who would normally be financially hobbled by that debt and the resulting interest would have the opportunity to save and invest for their retirement, purchase homes and start businesses, pay more in taxes for schools and roads, fund charities, and help pay for their own children's education. Also, the overall mental health of a large segment of the population and their families is improved. So, instead of that money going into the pockets of loan companies it is redistributed in socially positive ways.

To your earlier point, I'd argue that saddling a person with a greater amount of debt increases the likelihood they'll default on their loan anyway so an opportunity to forgive some of that debt makes them more likely to pay the remainder.

I'll also add that, with high-interest loans holding off payment until the government does something makes no sense because over time it lessens the actual benefit that person may or may not receive. People are more likely to simply pay the minimum requirement to reduce accrued interest.

[Kirby101]

So Mets, who supported the massive tax give away to the Rich with the Trump and Bush tax cuts, doesn't want middle class people under punitive debt to get relief. Priorities!

[PaulBullion]

So Mets, who supported the massive tax give away to the Rich with the Trump and Bush tax cuts, doesn't want middle class people under punitive debt to get relief. Priorities!

And the reason seems to be that snowflakes would get their feelings hurt if other people have it better.

[Mister Mets]

Someone who was 5 years away from retiring profited less from the 40 hour workweek than somebody who just started the job. It's the exact same thing.

For the sake of argument, let's give the popularization of the 40 hour workweek as being in 1869, when Ulysses S Grant guaranteed it for federal workers.

https://www.cultureamp.com/blog/40-h...e%20U.S.%20law.

Other years might be 1926 with Ford popularizing it, or 1940 with Congress making overtime pay mandatory.

The important thing is that people employed in the same field in 1870 are treated the same. People who were employed in the same field in 1858 were treated the same.

An analogous situation with college costs would be that if colleges became cheaper, as redundant administrators get fired, sports spending is slashed and online libraries reduce research costs, it would benefit students going forward but not the previous generation of students. This would be relatively normal. It's not penalizing good behavior (IE- making careful decisions when it comes to debt.)

[4saken1]

It makes suckers of the people who paid their bills on time, and made sacrifices to take care of their financial obligations.

The argument that making things better is disrespectful to those who didn't have the improvement in their time is one of the dumbest I have herd, sorry.

It would stop all and any progress.

Agreed, PaulBullion!

You are not alone in this mindset, Mets. It is one that I have heard repeated by many conservative 'Christians' as well, which I think is very odd. Not wanting others to have something which would make their life easier because you didn't have the same advantage is the height of selfishness and at it's core, reveals the soul of modern day conservatism. Opinions like this show just how few fucks Republicans actually give about the teaching of Jesus. Personally, if something came along which made younger people not have to go through some of the hardships which I had to endure at their age, I would be all for it!

It's an expensive giveaway to people who are disproportionately likely to earn higher levels of income.

Who will then go onto pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes.

My previous statement aside, doing so would be an expensive proposition. Forgiving all student debt would add another 1.6 trillion to the national debt, and add probably another couple hundred billion to the deficit every year. Certain standards for the debt forgiveness would need to be in place for future debt to be forgivable (i.e. how much a learning institution could charge to attend). If we simply forgive all student debt, this would just incentivize colleges to gouge the American taxpayer for future student debt. Furthermore, I'm not really interested in paying for some rich kids to get a fancy overpriced education!

[Mister Mets]

Agreed, PaulBullion!

You are not alone in this mindset, Mets. It is one that I have heard repeated by many conservative 'Christians' as well, which I think is very odd. Not wanting others to have something which would make their life easier because you didn't have the same advantage is the height of selfishness and at it's core, reveals the soul of modern day conservatism. Opinions like this show just how few fucks Republicans actually give about the teaching of Jesus. Personally, if something came along which made younger people not have to go through some of the hardships which I had to endure at their age, I would be all for it!



Who will then go onto pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes.

My previous statement aside, doing so would be an expensive proposition. Forgiving all student debt would add another 1.6 trillion to the national debt, and add probably another couple hundred billion to the deficit every year. Certain standards for the debt forgiveness would need to be in place for future debt to be forgivable (i.e. how much a learning institution could charge to attend). If we simply forgive all student debt, this would just incentivize colleges to gouge the American taxpayer for future student debt. Furthermore, I'm not really interested in paying for some rich kids to get a fancy overpriced education!

The problem with this scenario is that people who were irresponsible are getting the benefit compared to people who made sacrifices to pay off their debt.

If this outlook were a unique problem to modern conservatism, there would have been a time in the recent past when government typically paid people's debts.

I certainly agree with the concern that if we made a habit of paying debts, colleges would gouge taxpayers.

As for higher earnings going to taxes, that happens no matter what. There is a tax deduction for interest on student loans, but that's not enough to make up for the cost of the government paying it off.

So Mets, who supported the massive tax give away to the Rich with the Trump and Bush tax cuts, doesn't want middle class people under punitive debt to get relief. Priorities!

My opinions on the recent tax bill are a bit more nuanced, so you're basing an impression about my views on a caricature.

But what I think about a different topic is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket erasure of student loans is right. We know that you didn't support the tax giveaway, so any argument in its favor is not going to be persuasive to you.

And the reason seems to be that snowflakes would get their feelings hurt if other people have it better.

Presumably you have the same opinion in any situation in which anyone's feelings are hurt.

I don't think I've really addressed the political implications of hurt feelings before.

If someone works 2,000 hours over three years to pay off their college debt, and someone else who went to the same school at the same time has their debt erased by the government, the person who worked much harder for several years doing something that should be encouraged (paying off debt) should have the right to be upset.

When it comes to hurt feelings, the reason someone is hurt matters.

If someone's feelings are hurt by a racist or homophobic slur, that might merit some kind of punishment for the other party.

If someone's feelings are hurt because their shortcomings were accurately identified, that doesn't merit any kind of punishment. If a binge-drinker with an IQ of 90 and poor work effort is told that his problems getting a job are that he drinks too much and is unreliable, that might be information he can use to change himself going forward.

We should strive to have a society where people are not wronged.

[numberthirty]

The problem with this scenario is that people who were irresponsible are getting the benefit compared to people who made sacrifices to pay off their debt.

If this outlook were a unique problem to modern conservatism, there would have been a time in the recent past when government typically paid people's debts.

I certainly agree with the concern that if we made a habit of paying debts, colleges would gouge taxpayers.

As for higher earnings going to taxes, that happens no matter what. There is a tax deduction for interest on student loans, but that's not enough to make up for the cost of the government paying it off.

...

On that...

Where is the serious Republican Party effort to address even looking into the cost of a college education?

From what I've seen, they just use "College Liberal Brainwashing..."(or something along that line...) on conservative radio or FNC.

It certainly feels like something that they would be in a position to get Democrats to the table on. That's if they were actually serious about dealing with it.

[PwrdOn]

My previous statement aside, doing so would be an expensive proposition. Forgiving all student debt would add another 1.6 trillion to the national debt, and add probably another couple hundred billion to the deficit every year. Certain standards for the debt forgiveness would need to be in place for future debt to be forgivable (i.e. how much a learning institution could charge to attend). If we simply forgive all student debt, this would just incentivize colleges to gouge the American taxpayer for future student debt. Furthermore, I'm not really interested in paying for some rich kids to get a fancy overpriced education!

Long term, the entire system of higher education needs to be overhauled because the way it's structured now simply isn't sustainable unless a bunch of job opportunities that justify the cost of these degrees suddenly appear miraculously. The problem is that education is a positional good - having a fancy degree only matters because it gives you a competitive advantage over people who don't have them, and if everybody had a degree then they would be worthless. And historically, colleges were largely set up as an exclusive club for privileged children to solidify their own elite status, but the fact that a handful of people from humbler backgrounds managed to find their way in and leveraged this education to lucrative careers gave everybody the idea that college was the ticket to upward socioeconomic mobility. The problem is though that way too many people got this idea, to the point where college has practically become a requirement, and the demand has pushed up tuition to such a point where there's no way for the actual educational value of the degree to match it, with the status signaling value mostly gone now.

We shouldn't blame the fact that colleges do a poor job of preparing kids for the job market on all these blue-haired gender studies profs or whatever. The issue that, fundamentally, these institutions were set up for the idle pursuit of esoteric knowledge, not to train their students in practical skills, and we should allow them to go back to fulfilling that role for the small group of people who just want to broaden their intellectual horizons with no particular goal in mind. For the rest, we really need to start teaching kids more practical job skills from an early age, but to have universities as a resource for adults to receive specialized training in specific subjects if they have a need for that. Making every undergrad learn particle physics might seem like a noble goal, but virtually no one emerges from those classes actually having learned a damned thing.

[Adam Allen]

I'm generally not in favor of giving the wealthy money, or forgiving their debts.

The COVID comparison isn't a great one. Everyone is going to benefit from a vaccine. Distributing a vaccine isn't going to create perverse incentives going forward.

Student debt comes down to personal choice. Generally, someone either made a bad investment, or they were misled by a corrupt university. In these cases, the people and institutions who screwed up should not be rewarded.

It's probably about both, as well as ego.

With the forty hour workweek, everyone who was working during the same time was treated the same.

With a cancellation of debt, someone who went to college ten years ago and did the right thing (paid off as much of their debt as possible) gets less than a classmate who did the wrong thing (delayed paying off their debt.) It's punishing people who acted responsibly.

It's also a signal to people who owe student loans to put off paying for it as long as possible because an executive order might eliminate much of the debt.

The problem with this scenario is that people who were irresponsible are getting the benefit compared to people who made sacrifices to pay off their debt.

If this outlook were a unique problem to modern conservatism, there would have been a time in the recent past when government typically paid people's debts.

I certainly agree with the concern that if we made a habit of paying debts, colleges would gouge taxpayers.

As for higher earnings going to taxes, that happens no matter what. There is a tax deduction for interest on student loans, but that's not enough to make up for the cost of the government paying it off.

My opinions on the recent tax bill are a bit more nuanced, so you're basing an impression about my views on a caricature.

But what I think about a different topic is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket erasure of student loans is right. We know that you didn't support the tax giveaway, so any argument in its favor is not going to be persuasive to you.

Presumably you have the same opinion in any situation in which anyone's feelings are hurt.

I don't think I've really addressed the political implications of hurt feelings before.

If someone works 2,000 hours over three years to pay off their college debt, and someone else who went to the same school at the same time has their debt erased by the government, the person who worked much harder for several years doing something that should be encouraged (paying off debt) should have the right to be upset.

When it comes to hurt feelings, the reason someone is hurt matters.

If someone's feelings are hurt by a racist or homophobic slur, that might merit some kind of punishment for the other party.

If someone's feelings are hurt because their shortcomings were accurately identified, that doesn't merit any kind of punishment. If a binge-drinker with an IQ of 90 and poor work effort is told that his problems getting a job are that he drinks too much and is unreliable, that might be information he can use to change himself going forward.

We should strive to have a society where people are not wronged.

I think your disagreement with the proposal is a moral one, not a rational one. Which is not something I would seek to demean at all, just pointing out that if there is a disagreement here, I do not think it is about the logical consequences or how positive the proposal might be for the economy over all.

You have said you are concerned it might create "perverse incentives" ... that would seek I guess to address a sense of utilitarian morality? Then, forgiving student debt could not be right, because it would be harmful for society, in general? That is one perspective to argue the issue I guess, but it would really only be persuasive for you if your own morality is based in utilitarianism.

Some of your wording though seems to suggest your morality may be less concerned with what is best for everybody collectively, as more concerned with the idea that everybody is treated/judged/rewarded exactly equally. Because really, even if you and I went to the same school and graduated at the same time, and you worked very hard to pay off all of your debt in just five years while I still had a mountain of debt left, when suddenly the government came in and absolved all of my debt, as well -- in a practical way, my being debt-free doesn't hurt you in any way, at all.

I suppose that is something to do with your point about hurt feelings. We may mock or dismiss your sense of injustice at having my debt erased, but it is no small thing, for you.

I agree we should strive to have a society where people are not wronged. A very important issue there, however, is that we do not all have the same moral code. So, which do we use?

[Powerboy]

Agreed, PaulBullion!

You are not alone in this mindset, Mets. It is one that I have heard repeated by many conservative 'Christians' as well, which I think is very odd. Not wanting others to have something which would make their life easier because you didn't have the same advantage is the height of selfishness and at it's core, reveals the soul of modern day conservatism. Opinions like this show just how few fucks Republicans actually give about the teaching of Jesus. Personally, if something came along which made younger people not have to go through some of the hardships which I had to endure at their age, I would be all for it!



Who will then go onto pay a higher percent of their earnings in taxes.

My previous statement aside, doing so would be an expensive proposition. Forgiving all student debt would add another 1.6 trillion to the national debt, and add probably another couple hundred billion to the deficit every year. Certain standards for the debt forgiveness would need to be in place for future debt to be forgivable (i.e. how much a learning institution could charge to attend). If we simply forgive all student debt, this would just incentivize colleges to gouge the American taxpayer for future student debt. Furthermore, I'm not really interested in paying for some rich kids to get a fancy overpriced education!

Yes, the "Someone whose working life was ending right after the change took place" argument is the equivalent of "We can't end slavery/ inequality/ corporal punishment or whatever because those who lived through it for most of their lives benefit less than those who were only starting to suffer".

[Iron Maiden]

I have a similar story. Three years ago, my g/f and I attended the Anime Next convention in Atlantic City. We stayed at Bally's and from our window, we could see the Taj Mahal across the boardwalk. Of course, it used to be the Trump Taj Mahal, but after Trump bankrupted the casino, part of the deal was to take his name off the hotel. But you could still see the empty space above the Taj Mahal logo where Trump's name used to be.

Trump Tower is still in trouble. Before he got into his presidential campaign, the condo units were selling pretty well. Not so much today....the pricing of his condos have gone done every year of his presidency. The value of the Trump branding is diminished and sometimes they don't list them as Trump condos.

[Powerboy]

The problem with this scenario is that people who were irresponsible are getting the benefit compared to people who made sacrifices to pay off their debt.

If this outlook were a unique problem to modern conservatism, there would have been a time in the recent past when government typically paid people's debts.

I certainly agree with the concern that if we made a habit of paying debts, colleges would gouge taxpayers.

As for higher earnings going to taxes, that happens no matter what. There is a tax deduction for interest on student loans, but that's not enough to make up for the cost of the government paying it off.

My opinions on the recent tax bill are a bit more nuanced, so you're basing an impression about my views on a caricature.

But what I think about a different topic is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket erasure of student loans is right. We know that you didn't support the tax giveaway, so any argument in its favor is not going to be persuasive to you.

Presumably you have the same opinion in any situation in which anyone's feelings are hurt.

I don't think I've really addressed the political implications of hurt feelings before.

If someone works 2,000 hours over three years to pay off their college debt, and someone else who went to the same school at the same time has their debt erased by the government, the person who worked much harder for several years doing something that should be encouraged (paying off debt) should have the right to be upset.

When it comes to hurt feelings, the reason someone is hurt matters.

If someone's feelings are hurt by a racist or homophobic slur, that might merit some kind of punishment for the other party.

If someone's feelings are hurt because their shortcomings were accurately identified, that doesn't merit any kind of punishment. If a binge-drinker with an IQ of 90 and poor work effort is told that his problems getting a job are that he drinks too much and is unreliable, that might be information he can use to change himself going forward.

We should strive to have a society where people are not wronged.

I agree with you in principal but the problem is one of exorbitant college costs leading to exorbitant interest payments.

I paid off my student loans long ago and the cost in interest was far more than the actual loans. I was done with college just when costs were beginning to skyrocket. Obviously, I don't benefit at all from student debt being forgiven. But I support student debt being forgiven because the system is out of control and something needs to be done.

This reminds me of an argument a friend of mine used to have. It went something like, "If minimum wage goes from $5 an hour to $10 an hour and I am making $40 an hour, I have to get a raise too and it can't just be five more dollars an hour. It has to be a percentage raise to $80 an hour otherwise I'm losing ground". It's this whole thing of someone cannot benefit more than me or be given a living wage that makes me slightly less rich.

[4saken1]

Long term, the entire system of higher education needs to be overhauled because the way it's structured now simply isn't sustainable unless a bunch of job opportunities that justify the cost of these degrees suddenly appear miraculously. The problem is that education is a positional good - having a fancy degree only matters because it gives you a competitive advantage over people who don't have them, and if everybody had a degree then they would be worthless. And historically, colleges were largely set up as an exclusive club for privileged children to solidify their own elite status, but the fact that a handful of people from humbler backgrounds managed to find their way in and leveraged this education to lucrative careers gave everybody the idea that college was the ticket to upward socioeconomic mobility. The problem is though that way too many people got this idea, to the point where college has practically become a requirement, and the demand has pushed up tuition to such a point where there's no way for the actual educational value of the degree to match it, with the status signaling value mostly gone now.

We shouldn't blame the fact that colleges do a poor job of preparing kids for the job market on all these blue-haired gender studies profs or whatever. The issue that, fundamentally, these institutions were set up for the idle pursuit of esoteric knowledge, not to train their students in practical skills, and we should allow them to go back to fulfilling that role for the small group of people who just want to broaden their intellectual horizons with no particular goal in mind. For the rest, we really need to start teaching kids more practical job skills from an early age, but to have universities as a resource for adults to receive specialized training in specific subjects if they have a need for that. Making every undergrad learn particle physics might seem like a noble goal, but virtually no one emerges from those classes actually having learned a damned thing.

Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous. My girlfriend is going for her Masters Degree in Social Work. Before she completed her Bachelor's Degree in Child Development, she was looking at summer jobs and noticed how many at or near minimum wage jobs were asking for Bachelor's Degrees, most of which were somewhat mundane jobs which didn't seem to have any real need for such credentials.

[4saken1]

Hey, does everybody remember that passage from the Bible where Jesus was feeding the hungry, then everybody else was like "Wait.......if he's just handing out food, why should I even bother working for mine?"