Debt-free College (Warren's plan) - Split from: U.S. Democratic Primary

[Raider5678]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

This serves as yet another example of how important availability of education is and how our current system is badly failing even the most talented among us.  

Touche...... +1

Edited January 28, 2020 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

Why should anyone forgive someone $10,000 for 4 years and another $200,000 for 4 years?

Should the most expensive Universities be fully funded? Why?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why should anyone forgive someone $10,000 for 4 years and another $200,000 for 4 years?

Should the most expensive Universities be fully funded? Why?

Her plan tops out at $50K. Anything above that must be personally funded.

Perhaps a better question is: Why do so many people keep asking us to address unrealistic and unadvocated circumstances?

Or: Why do so many people continue standing in opposition without educating themselves on the actual details being discussed?

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Her plan tops out at $50K. Anything above that must be personally funded.

Perhaps a better question is: Why do so many people keep asking us to address unrealistic and unadvocated circumstances?

Or: Why do so many people continue standing in opposition without educating themselves on the actual details being discussed?

Sanders plan is "all student debt" is it not?

Perhaps if you want to defend Warren you can start with "why 50K for some while only 10K for another?" 

 

Maybe they have identical educations and circumstances otherwise...but one partied while the other worked...

Maybe they both input the same...but one chose a less expensive university...

etc.

[iNow]

This thread has been about Warrens plan. AFAICT, you’re the first to introduce Bernie’s far more expansive approach. 

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Perhaps if you want to defend Warren you can start with "why 50K for some while only 10K for another?" 

The max is 50k. Whether or not you use all of that is a personal decision with numerous reasons why. That’s more a choice for the student than a problem inherent in the plan, IMO

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm assuming you have a point here, but I don't see it.

Why does this make debt forgiveness a good idea?

 

 

BTW, only about 4% of the savings for the loan forgiveness plan would actually help the bottom 20% who need it the most. 96% of the loan repayment would go to people who are having no issues paying their loans at the moment.^[1]

(This next statement is sarcasm about the general state of politics, and is not aimed at you iNow.(unless you were aware of these statistics already))

But don't let statistics and math get in the way of a good election promise.

Because, as the article points out, the bottom 20% are less likely to go to college and thus incur the debt. IOW, there is a separate problem in play.

Statistics often need context. The statistics here are a criticism of a different problem, one that this plan is not meant to address.

 

Quote

 

 

Additionally, let's not forget what happens if, as all too often happens in politics, Warren only delivers on half of her promise. That half being debt forgiveness.

College tuition would sky rocket, because the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. And now we're all worse off, except those that got their debt forgiven. A one time benefit bill. In my mind, equivalent to an unspoken bribe, that wrecks everybody else's future for the selfishness of those currently here.

I'm not sure why you think the tuition would go up. Enrollment is declining, so there are empty slots. Colleges can take on more students without having to expand staff or facilities. More students is more income, without a corresponding increase in cost.

And especially if this is coupled with subsidized/free tuition at state schools, there isn't the same incentive to raise tuition when you have to compete for students  

 

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 

No, but I will argue to kill the idea because I believe it'll cause more harm then good.

What is the harm? What I've seen is a contrived example whose math doesn't actually check out, and a claim that tuition will go up based on...nothing.

[Raider5678]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure why you think the tuition would go up. Enrollment is declining, so there are empty slots. Colleges can take on more students without having to expand staff or facilities. More students is more income, without a corresponding increase in cost.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it seems like you're saying that tuition would not go up since enrollment is declining. Is this correct?

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure why you think the tuition would go up. Enrollment is declining, so there are empty slots. Colleges can take on more students without having to expand staff or facilities. More students is more income, without a corresponding increase in cost.

I explained why I think tuition would go up as well.

" the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. "

 In capitalism, there is supply and demand. Demand for higher priced degrees would increase, because more people are willing to take loans out of that amount. Then, in concurrence with that increased demand, prices would rise. This cause and effect is a well proven concept. Increased demand, with no increase in supply, results in higher prices. Demand will increase far faster than supply will increase. This will result in higher prices.

 

If you're arguing whether or demand would increase or not, that's something I think we could discuss. If you're arguing whether or not demand actually increases prices when supply doesn't grow, you need to provide mathematics to prove that it doesn't. (I'm presuming the burden of proof is on you here, because it's a well established rule of economics: https://www3.nd.edu/~cwilber/econ504/504book/outln3b.html)

Edited January 28, 2020 by Raider5678

[iNow]

I believe the idea is they can take on additional students with existing facilities and faculties. No need to hike tuitions for new buildings or new professors since they would mainly be filling currently empty seats with this new population of students... students for whom higher education was previously inaccessible. 

Swansont is more than capable of clarifying. That’s just what I took away from it. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it seems like you're saying that tuition would not go up since enrollment is declining. Is this correct?

I explained why I think tuition would go up as well.

" the incentive to take more student debt in exchange for a better college degree would be massive. Younger students would say "Well. My parents got lucky and got their debt forgiven, maybe I will too." and will be willing to take larger loans. Colleges, in exchange, would raise their tuition dramatically to meet that new demand. "
 

1. To use iNow’s phrasing, they currently have empty seats. The “new demand” places no new burden on them. It’s also not an increase in demand, it’s a reversion to the old demand, at least to start.

2, There’s no need for loans if tuition is free.

3. Colleges are still competing with each other. 

 

Quote

 In capitalism, there is supply and demand. Demand for higher priced degrees would increase, because more people are willing to take loans out of that amount. Then, in concurrence with that increased demand, prices would rise. This cause and effect is a well proven concept. Increased demand, with no increase in supply, results in higher prices. Demand will increase far faster than supply will increase. This will result in higher prices.

What is the evidence that demand will increase faster than supply? Enrollment is down by about a million from 2011 to 2017, and the number of HS graduates that don’t go to college is less than a million each year - almost 70% of graduates already go to college.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-high-school-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm
 

Quote

 

If you're arguing whether or demand would increase or not, that's something I think we could discuss. If you're arguing whether or not demand actually increases prices when supply doesn't grow, you need to provide mathematics to prove that it doesn't. (I'm presuming the burden of proof is on you here, because it's a well established rule of economics: https://www3.nd.edu/~cwilber/econ504/504book/outln3b.html)

The point is that the supply, in essence, grows. Latent capacity.

If the supply/demand behaved as you predicted, (i.e. it applies here as you are claiming) tuition must have been falling for the last few years.

Doesn’t look like that’s happening

https://medium.com/@noamaltzman/keeping-up-with-modern-society-rising-cost-of-higher-education-ce451f052428

[CharonY]

Also, in the supply-demand model one should also remember that most colleges are not for-profit. Even if they have to meet a higher demand tuition is typically only raised if there is a shortage in federal and state funding (which is an ongoing issue in many areas). The so-called Bennett hypothesis which claimed  that student loan availability is a factor increasing tuition cost has so far only been demonstrated conclusively in for-profit universities. Public unis usually pass on suprlus back to the students.

Perhaps paradoxically, when universities are competing for students tuition costs can go up as the universities add (costly) amenities to attracts students. This is especially true for universities with high-income student bodies and low admission thresholds.

 

 

[MigL]

Assuming I came around to your way of thinking...
Exactly how would the maximum of $50k be disbursed ?
As INow pointed out, I'm not 100% familiar with E Warren's proposal.
Would there be cases where a student loan doesn't qualify for forgiveness ?
Perhaps if the student didn't complete his/her studies ?
Or if the student takes on a large loan, for medical studies, say, expecting a big salary payout, but can't hack the course load, switches to teaching Phisical Ed., and can't afford to repay the large loan ?

I'd be interested in more detail.
And maybe if E Warren would explain herself better to citizens who have repaid their obligations, her polling might start to rise again.
( both J Biden and B Sanders are too old, and I can't root for A Yang like JC )

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

I’d be interested in more detail.

In the US, presidents set the targets and inspire people to aim for them. Congress sets the laws and the details to deliver what the people are aiming for. 

Said another way, the debate over details is important, but comes later. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

For now, check out her page that I linked earlier in the thread (or google Warren debt free college). Relative to other candidates and their available plan materials, hers is IMO the single most detailed. 

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

maybe if E Warren would explain herself better to citizens who have repaid their obligations, her polling might start to rise again.

Doubtful. People tend to vote more with their hearts than their heads, especially this close to the start of actual elections. 

Screw it. Here it is for convenience:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/affordable-higher-education
 

Quote

Here’s what my new plan would do:

• It cancels $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with household income under $100,000.

• It provides substantial debt cancellation for every person with household income between $100,000 and $250,000. The $50,000 cancellation amount phases out by $1 for every $3 in income above $100,000, so, for example, a person with household income of $130,000 gets $40,000 in cancellation, while a person with household income of $160,000 gets $30,000 in cancellation.

• It offers no debt cancellation to people with household income above $250,000 (the top 5%).

• For most Americans, cancellation will take place automatically using data already available to the federal government about income and outstanding student loan debt.

• Private student loan debt is also eligible for cancellation, and the federal government will work with borrowers and the holders of this debt to provide relief.

• Canceled debt will not be taxed as income.

An economic analysis from leading experts on student loan debt finds that my plan would provide at least some debt cancellation for 95% of people with student loan debt (and complete and total student debt cancellation for more than 75%), provide targeted cancellation for the families that need it most, substantially increase Black and Latinx wealth, and help close the racial wealth gap.

 

Quote

That’s step one.

INVESTING IN HIGHER EDUCATION SO AMERICANS CAN GRADUATE DEBT-FREE

Step two is making sure nothing like this ever happens again. We need to fundamentally change the broken system that created the crisis in the first place.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Assuming I came around to your way of thinking...
Exactly how would the maximum of $50k be disbursed ?
As INow pointed out, I'm not 100% familiar with E Warren's proposal.
Would there be cases where a student loan doesn't qualify for forgiveness ?
Perhaps if the student didn't complete his/her studies ?
Or if the student takes on a large loan, for medical studies, say, expecting a big salary payout, but can't hack the course load, switches to teaching Phisical Ed., and can't afford to repay the large loan ?

I'd be interested in more detail.
And maybe if E Warren would explain herself better to citizens who have repaid their obligations, her polling might start to rise again.
( both J Biden and B Sanders are too old, and I can't root for A Yang like JC )

Any particular reason?

[iNow]

If there is, it’s terribly off topic 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

If there is, it’s terribly off topic 

!

Moderator Note

Yes. Posts on Yang's debt plan have been split to a new thread

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121156-debt-free-college-yangs-plan-split/

 

 

[MigL]

We were discussing debt-free college.
No Democratic candidate's name in brackets.
And it seemed to me to be an interesting discussion.

I would think debt free college can have various implementations.
So why not discuss the various proposals ( by various candidates ) in the same thread, so as to facilitate comparison ?

It is not simply a question of YES or NO, to debt-free college; the details obviously matter.

[zapatos]

On 1/27/2020 at 7:57 PM, Raider5678 said:

I do feel obligated however, that if we're paying one group of people's debt, we should repay those who already paid their debt. That is fair. Because believe it or not, to most of us $70,000 is a lot of money.

Does that include my debt? I paid it off about 30 years ago.

[swansont]

Can we stick to the topic? Raider's example is not only wildly atypical (they even linked to an article about how only a small fraction of debt even hits $50k and blithely suggests that coming up with $70k of extra cash right out of college would be easy) it misrepresents the plan — it ignores the $50k cap, and if the debt is unpaid for 10 years, that the debt will be more like $115k (5% compounded). It's not getting wiped out.

And it was already addressed that no, if you paid off your debt, you don't get anything. 

By the same token, if you didn't have (adequate) health insurance 12 years ago, you aren't getting your medical bills paid off either, even though the ACA later kicked in. The idea is to level the playing field going forward, not invent time travel.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can we stick to the topic? Raider's example is not only wildly atypical (they even linked to an article about how only a small fraction of debt even hits $50k and blithely suggests that coming up with $70k of extra cash right out of college would be easy) it misrepresents the plan — it ignores the $50k cap, and if the debt is unpaid for 10 years, that the debt will be more like $115k (5% compounded). It's not getting wiped out.

And it was already addressed that no, if you paid off your debt, you don't get anything. 

By the same token, if you didn't have (adequate) health insurance 12 years ago, you aren't getting your medical bills paid off either, even though the ACA later kicked in. The idea is to level the playing field going forward, not invent time travel.

Is that coming from a moderator or a participant? If it's from a moderator I'll stop right now. If it's is from a participant I don't feel that this is off topic. The reason this thread came up is because someone questioned if Warren's plan was adequate as is and that it possibly should be modified to be fair.

To disallow a discussion surrounding what tweaks to her plan might make it more fair seems a ridiculous restriction on the scope of this discussion.

[CharonY]

You and MigL are not wrong, part of the issue is that OP, which is itself a split was started as a criticism on a specific plan. The discussion has evolved to a more general discussion regarding college  debt models. However, moving into that direction will dilute the focus on Warren's plan. I feel that only after three pages the details of the plan were outlined which should be the start of the conversation, before veering off into another direction. Since we do not have a traditional OP who could suggest where the focus of the discussion should be, I suggest that we stick to Warren's plan and its implications first, whilst staff discusses whether we should merge the threads. I would also invite MigL's and iNow's input for opening the scope in this discussion (as they seem to be closest to what could be considered OPs).

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Is that coming from a moderator or a participant? If it's from a moderator I'll stop right now. If it's is from a participant I don't feel that this is off topic. The reason this thread came up is because someone questioned if Warren's plan was adequate as is and that it possibly should be modified to be fair.

To disallow a discussion surrounding what tweaks to her plan might make it more fair seems a ridiculous restriction on the scope of this discussion.

A participant. Annoyed at misinformation being perpetuated, which mucks up the conversation

What I'm asking is that if you want to critique, can you use an example that is not blatantly wrong, and also grossly atypical?

And also saying it's helpful to have scanned the thread to see if your point was addressed already.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

A participant. Annoyed at misinformation being perpetuated, which mucks up the conversation

What I'm asking is that if you want to critique, can you use an example that is not blatantly wrong, and also grossly atypical?

And also saying it's helpful to have scanned the thread to see if your point was addressed already.

Thanks for the tips. Perhaps in your free time you can review my other posts on this site and give me further pointers. Sorry I haven't met your expectations thus far.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I would also invite MigL's and iNow's input for opening the scope in this discussion

Thanks for the opportunity. I’m okay discussing plans from other candidates here within this topic. It was when MigL said he couldn’t support Yang in general and JCM asked why not that I felt that had veered too far OT (it was more about the election and the candidate himself than about his college proposals). If we’re specifically discussing Yangs plan to eliminate student debt and strive toward debt free college, that seems to fit here fine. 

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry I haven't met your expectations thus far.

IINM, swansonts comments were more about JCM and Raider and the extreme examples being used as counter points, you just happened to reply to Raider

Edited January 29, 2020 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Thanks for the opportunity. I’m okay discussing plans from other candidates here within this topic. It was when MigL said he couldn’t support Yang in general and JCM asked why not that I felt that had veered too far OT (it was more about the election and the candidate himself than about his college proposals). If we’re specifically discussing Yangs plan to eliminate student debt and strive toward debt free college, that seems to fit here fine. 

IINM, swansonts comments were more about JCM and Raider and the extreme examples being used as counter points, you just happened to reply to Raider

Mentioning a 200K refund certainly now seems excessive in this Warren thread. Seemed quite reasonable when it included Sanders, and your previous objection is now valid.

On 1/27/2020 at 11:08 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why should anyone forgive someone $10,000 for 4 years and another $200,000 for 4 years?

Should the most expensive Universities be fully funded? Why?

On 1/27/2020 at 11:22 PM, iNow said:

Her plan tops out at $50K. Anything above that must be personally funded.

Perhaps a better question is: Why do so many people keep asking us to address unrealistic and unadvocated circumstances?

Or: Why do so many people continue standing in opposition without educating themselves on the actual details being discussed?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

The ironic thing is that the current leading Democrat, Bernie Sanders, is the one that is advocating what includes these "unrealistic circumstances".

I thought that would be added to the above post. Sorry if it is off topic. Please don't open a Bernie Sanders "Truly" Debt Free College thread.

Edited January 29, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell