I don't think its possible to have a degree be too cheap relative to the labor market. If theres a huge demand then you should make it cheaper if anything to encourage talent into those fields so we all benefit from the roles being filled.

If there is huge demand, there should be more grants or subsidies to incentivize talent going into those fields.

But that's a rather peripheral point anyway. The more important problem is that caps on university costs would not prevent low value degrees from still being overpriced, and they wouldnt alleviate the burden on students who struggle at the start of their job life. My proposal of caping the repayment of student loans to a fixed percentage of monthly income achieves all of that.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 29 2020 09:52am

I don’t understand tbh

So tuition wouldn’t exist and your repayment would be a function of whatever you’re making?

Caps on tuition absolutely would alleviate struggle at the start of the job life. A 200 payment is easier than a 500 payment. It would have the exact same effect as a cap on repayment.




Thats just taxes!

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 29 2020 09:56am

No, tuition would still exist, student loans would still exist, but there would be a legal framework preventing whichever entity granted the loan (typically banks) from being entitles to more than x% of your monthly income post-graduation (with some flat exemptions to account for basic costs of living). Therefore, banks would simply stop granting loans for degrees which, on average, fail to achieve salaries worthy of their cost. A JD might still be worth several hundred grand, but a degree in lesbian dance therapy or epistemiology of the Occident would not.



No, it would not, lmao.

Under your proposal, someone who doesnt find a job after graduation would still be on the hook for $200/month, while he would pay $0 under my proposal. Furthermore, under your proposal, those who do great after college would still only pay $200, while they would pay far more under mine.

Capping tuition does nothing to solve any of the underlying issues or misallocations, while a cap on repayment rates would tie the financial burden and the job success of graduates to each other. "From each according to his (financial) ability..."

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 29 2020 10:09am

Im assuming the current system is otherwise in place where you can get forebearance with low income. Your idea is basically just the current system with lower income based repayment options.

People doing well paying more isn't a good thing in student loans. Theyre already paying a higher progressive tax rate after all.

Capping tuition solves the problem at its root. I think we have different ideas of what the system should look like so youre seeing things as a problem when I see it as how it should be

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 29 2020 10:16am

Trash classes and degrees exist because they're subsidized by student loans. The government acts as an irresponsible parent who gives a credit card to a young adult who doesn't know any better and doesn't understand cause and effect fully.

You won't get wise investment from a macro perspective as long as this exists and forgiving this unwise spending is just going to further encourage it.

This kind of already exists to a large extent but most in-demand degrees and fields already have varying mechanisms that subsidize/pay for that education. Like companies paying for your CPA, companies paying for your MBA, CFA, series exams, certifications, and so on. Personally, I think there are industries that are worth subsidizing at the graduate/doctoral level even to a larger extent than they currently are, fields like physics, high tech, engineering, etc but like I said they kind of already are to a certain extent. The software engineer already graduates where he has companies fighting for him with a million perks.

Yeah, and those with middle income are strangled by their repayment rates.



That's the key idea: if we base the repayment rates on the income a degree allows the average graduate from a field to achieve, then this will automatically take the air out of inflated degree prices. Banks wouldnt be willing give out loans of X dollars for degrees where they have to, on average, expect to only recuperate <X. This, in turn, would mean that colleges have to lower the price tag for low value degrees.



People who have the financial breathing room paying more, so that those who have little to no breathing room can pay less, is generally a good thing. That's the kind of solidarity the political left is always talking about. We just have to find a sensible definition of "breathing room", so that people doing fine but not great arent soaked.



Your idea is a system where people can get high value degrees for cheap. Which is a fine concept, but ultimately only feasible if most of higher education is government-run instead of private. You basically want the university system from continental Europe. Which isnt even a point of view I can disagree with; I personally benefitted a lot from this system after all.

I just think that going from America's current system to the continental European system would be too big a jump. Imho, the U.S. system can be improved, can be made more equitable and see its financial pressure defused, without requiring such a huge (and frankly unrealistic) paradigm shift.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 29 2020 10:37am

Student Loan forgiveness punishes people that actually plan their lives correctly.

Just make the School responsible for the interest, its much easier and would solve the problem overnight.



"Taxcuts on billionaires" is such a 60-IQ commie spin. Rich people pay 90% of taxes in America.

You should support making schools responsible for the loan interest with me!

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Nov 29 2020 10:40am

Someone with a biology major will still end up in ridiculous amounts of debt even if they have a maximum amount they are having to pay with your proposal