student loan, tuition, H-1B and debt forgiveness thread

[Rocinante]

Maybe we should start a separate thread for this so that we stop cluttering these threads? We could probably have a mod clean this up and move the posts to their own thread?

 

[History Learner]

I'm kind of on the side of "neither one," rather than one or the other.

I was saying up thread that allowing bankruptcy on student loans will never happen because too many people would choose to file bankruptcy. I use myself as an example. I probably would. This is not a good thing.

See, I can pay it. I made the decision to take on that debt, and I can pay it. It would be nice to not have to, and I'd jump on the chance, and so would lots of other people. That's why it isn't a viable option.

Neither is outright loan forgiveness.

Now, I am okay with programs to make it more affordable. Maybe some companies won't make as much, but it's a middle ground. Right now there's a decent program that matches your payments to a percentage of your income. That's not a bad compromise. You might even end up paying less than your interest, causing the loan to continually grow, but there's a compromise of a forgiveness program too, where after 20 years of payments, the remainder is forgiven. So you could make affordable payments for 20 years, and then the loan is gone, even if it actually grew in size during those years.

So it's not a total loss to the loan companies, the government, or the schools, and it's not that terrible on the loan receiver either.

I'm open to tweaks and changes. I'm also open to ideas to lower tuition and prevent future generations from picking up this kind of insane debt. But outright forgiveness or allowing massive waves of bankruptcy go too far.

Of the total $1.619 Trillion in student loan debt, 93% is held by the Federal Government and they're already running it at a loss without changing the terms to be more favorable. Over five million borrowers are also already in default. At this point, if we've already accepted the Federal Government is going to be taking a loss on the debt, why not just forgive it?

 

[Doomsought]

At the cost of ruining their credit, which will follow them till the day they die and seriously effect their ability to buy homes, cars, and other necessities of modern life. Removing the Federal Guarantee also only works on future loans, not standing debt; it's a legal contract on the outstanding amount.

The thing about writing the law, is that it makes it very eacsy to breach a contract legally.

 

[Rocinante]

So we were talking about college tuition prices, student loans debt forgiveness, and comparing prices of tuition for training workers vs bringing in workers with H-1B visas.

I figured that discussion could use it's own thread.

This OP is just to create a place for a mod to move posts into, they should be showing up here soon

 

[Abhishekm]

So we were talking about college tuition prices, student loans debt forgiveness, and comparing prices of tuition for training workers vs bringing in workers with H-1B visas.

I figured that discussion could use it's own thread.

This OP is just to create a place for a mod to move posts into, they should be showing up here soon

Huh, so thats why the H1 is on there. Felt a bit tacked on. The thing about the H1 is that for most of the ones especially in IT as people like to that about its not really a matter of a degree. Most of the IT type jobs filled by H1 are heavily short terms stuff odd as it may be. Thats why there was so much hoopla a while back about agency work for OPTs and H1s.

An average H1 IT employee will work for an average 5 companies in 5 years and by the time they even apply for a will have a decade of experience and have lived it anywhere for 3 to 6 states. And that is discounting their experience from before.

The average H1 worker whose worked for the same company longer term instead of a bunch of companies short term first worked in an over seas office in an offshore IT team for 2 to 4 years before getting transferred over to the main branch or atleast a US office after enough promotions. Then whether the company keeps him or he moves to a different one when he gets sick of the conditions there is based on how decent the company is.

As for other industries? Medical H1s are hell. You are literally better off doing your medical education again in the US than going through it. By the time you have a H1 in the medical field you are basically 2 promotions down of where you should be. (So if your feeling funny trust the h1 doc over the diversity or trust fund hire is my advice. JK don't ban).

As for other industries? Don't know many honestly, know an architecture guy who designed buildings in India, saved up got a degree in architecture in the US and got scouted to design air flow models or something for large buildings ventilation.

But for the most part far as I know training really isn't the issue. More of a experience or niche thing. Thing is in the US you've got a lot of niches spread out when you consider the entire country and a lot of businesses with global scale that really on average can have their most competent people be from somewhere else.

Heh, thing is by just the fact of their work ethic and cultural values most of them are honestly more conservative than me. Only thing they complain about is a 20 wait line for a Green Card compared to people 'jumping the line'. The salt there would make the Drumph memes look tame.

But basically tl:dr a big reason for the give on H1s is they are more about skill than any actual training or degree. Knowing how to work with certain thing or do certain tasks. People with H1s spend a lot of time and effort making sure they are up to date on those things the market demands of them. Stuff a community College degree or on work training really would not cover for people who couldn't get anything else. But I'm probably a little biased being personally invested there so sorry if it strong or sounds too one sided.

But in my opinion anyone with a US citizenship and enough personal ability to make it in that kind of work requirement would be way better off choosing a better career path. Especially in terms of work life balance.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Reading over the last few pages, I find it semi-disturbing how "debt" is a practically normal thing in our day and age instead of something to avoid (I've got student debt myself). Given that our economies are now debt based, I can't imagine them ending well in the future. One day it will have to be paid back, and we'll realise there's nothing to pay it back with.

 

[LordsFire]

The federal student loan program needs to be ended. It is making things worse for students, not better, and at this point it's utterly out of control.

You don't even need to revoke current loans. Just stop offering new ones.

In addition to protecting prospective students from predatory universities, it'll immediately force a re-evaluation of expenditures for every single university in the country, excepting for Hillsdale and one or two others that do not take federal money. Since banks and other institutions that actually expect their loans to be repaid in a meaningful timeframe will require students to convince them that they'll be actually earning with their degrees, you can expect a lot of programs that are useless to start folding pretty bloody quickly. Or else dragging the entire school into bankruptcy, which is fine too.

It'd be one of the most effective options out there for deflating the propaganda mills.

 

[History Learner]

The thing about writing the law, is that it makes it very eacsy to breach a contract legally.

Wouldn't want to do that because breaching contract on the basis of writing has consequences, in particular, the willingness of people to buy U.S. Treasuries/Bonds:

"If I buy these 10 year Bonds, who is to say they won't change the terms unilaterally on me? Better not buy them then."

 

[History Learner]

As a compromise solution, how about the Student Security Act of 2017? It was introduced by Republican Congressman Tom Garrett, and is a proposal that is fair:

The Student Security Program would offer student debtors the option of eliminating portions of their debt in exchange for delaying the age at which they will qualify for Social Security benefits. It would use immediate debt relief to cut mandatory spending in the future, and would create significant net savings over the lifetime of the program. Specifically, it would give $550 in student-loan forgiveness for each month a debtor was willing to raise his full retirement age, or $6,600 per year. For comparison, the average Social Security beneficiary receives $16,000 annually. Cosigners (parents, grandparents, etc.) could also participate, thereby resulting in earlier net savings for the program.​

​

The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary estimates this program would save $726 billion over a 75-year window. This is a static score, meaning it does not account for the economic benefits of debt relief, and it represents roughly 11 percent of what is required to make Social Security fully solvent for the next 75 years in its current form.​

​

The plan sets a maximum level of forgiveness of $40,150. This is high enough that 90 percent of those with student loans could fully erase their debt if they so chose, though it would entail delaying Social Security for up to six years and one month.​

This would solve the issue of debt without full cancellation, for those who are opposed to that on principle. While this serves to eliminate the Student Loan issue as a matter for current debt holders, what of future students? Kevin Williamson at National Review wrote an excellent article on the subject:

Here is a three-part plan for something practical the federal government could do to relieve college-loan debt. Step 1: The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans. Step 2: It should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions or, if that seems too heavy-handed, require the application of ordinary credit standards in any private educational lending, treating the student himself as the main credit risk in all cases, including those of secured or unsecured loans taken out by parents or other third parties for that student’s educational expenses. And 3: It should make student-loan debt dischargeable in ordinary bankruptcy procedures.​

​

The most likely end result of this would be the effective abolition of government- and bank-based financing of college education in all but the most narrowly defined circumstances. Good riddance. That leaves about $1.5 trillion in existing debt on the table, a very large number from which the federal government derives very little income, about 0.1 percent a year, or $1.5 billion — a fact that should enter into our calculations about whether we attempt to collect every nickel of that money or, perhaps, slowly forgive some of that debt for students who keep up with their payments and are otherwise good citizens, maybe at a rate of 2 percent of the principal a year.​

​

It is time to shut down the Bank of Uncle Stupid.​

​

Colleges will have two choices: Bring their tuitions down to a more reasonable rate or, if they are so inclined, work out financing arrangements of their own. This would not present too much trouble to splendidly endowed schools such as Harvard and Princeton, or to public schools with substantial resources at their disposal. A senior official of my alma mater, the University of Texas, once caused a stir by confessing — in public — that UT Austin doesn’t need to charge tuition at all but does so mainly as a population-control mechanism. The problem, he said, wasn’t money as such but the fact that the state would not let him raise admissions standards. Admittedly, UT has become a little more selective in recent years.​

 

[Abhishekm]

As a compromise solution, how about the Student Security Act of 2017? It was introduced by Republican Congressman Tom Garrett, and is a proposal that is fair:

The Student Security Program would offer student debtors the option of eliminating portions of their debt in exchange for delaying the age at which they will qualify for Social Security benefits. It would use immediate debt relief to cut mandatory spending in the future, and would create significant net savings over the lifetime of the program. Specifically, it would give $550 in student-loan forgiveness for each month a debtor was willing to raise his full retirement age, or $6,600 per year. For comparison, the average Social Security beneficiary receives $16,000 annually. Cosigners (parents, grandparents, etc.) could also participate, thereby resulting in earlier net savings for the program.​

​

The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary estimates this program would save $726 billion over a 75-year window. This is a static score, meaning it does not account for the economic benefits of debt relief, and it represents roughly 11 percent of what is required to make Social Security fully solvent for the next 75 years in its current form.​

​

The plan sets a maximum level of forgiveness of $40,150. This is high enough that 90 percent of those with student loans could fully erase their debt if they so chose, though it would entail delaying Social Security for up to six years and one month.​

This would solve the issue of debt without full cancellation, for those who are opposed to that on principle. While this serves to eliminate the Student Loan issue as a matter for current debt holders, what of future students? Kevin Williamson at National Review wrote an excellent article on the subject:

Here is a three-part plan for something practical the federal government could do to relieve college-loan debt. Step 1: The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans. Step 2: It should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions or, if that seems too heavy-handed, require the application of ordinary credit standards in any private educational lending, treating the student himself as the main credit risk in all cases, including those of secured or unsecured loans taken out by parents or other third parties for that student’s educational expenses. And 3: It should make student-loan debt dischargeable in ordinary bankruptcy procedures.​

​

The most likely end result of this would be the effective abolition of government- and bank-based financing of college education in all but the most narrowly defined circumstances. Good riddance. That leaves about $1.5 trillion in existing debt on the table, a very large number from which the federal government derives very little income, about 0.1 percent a year, or $1.5 billion — a fact that should enter into our calculations about whether we attempt to collect every nickel of that money or, perhaps, slowly forgive some of that debt for students who keep up with their payments and are otherwise good citizens, maybe at a rate of 2 percent of the principal a year.​

​

It is time to shut down the Bank of Uncle Stupid.​

​

Colleges will have two choices: Bring their tuitions down to a more reasonable rate or, if they are so inclined, work out financing arrangements of their own. This would not present too much trouble to splendidly endowed schools such as Harvard and Princeton, or to public schools with substantial resources at their disposal. A senior official of my alma mater, the University of Texas, once caused a stir by confessing — in public — that UT Austin doesn’t need to charge tuition at all but does so mainly as a population-control mechanism. The problem, he said, wasn’t money as such but the fact that the state would not let him raise admissions standards. Admittedly, UT has become a little more selective in recent years.​

That does not sound horrible. That said you would have to stop issuing new federal student loans as well. Becausw while it does not eliminate existing debt it will stop additional unpayable debt from accruing.

 

[History Learner]

That does not sound horrible. That said you would have to stop issuing new federal student loans as well. Becausw while it does not eliminate existing debt it will stop additional unpayable debt from accruing.

That’s exactly what Kevin Williamson says to do; it’s a good article, I’d really recommend reading it.

 

[History Learner]

Reading over the last few pages, I find it semi-disturbing how "debt" is a practically normal thing in our day and age instead of something to avoid (I've got student debt myself). Given that our economies are now debt based, I can't imagine them ending well in the future. One day it will have to be paid back, and we'll realise there's nothing to pay it back with.

The 1960s-1980s epoch really did a number on the United States.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

These universities are all left leaning and all espouse for communism and yet they love price gouging their students and then seem to channel said rage about the student debt towards patriarchy, white men and the government.

Maybe this is by design?

 

[Rocinante]

As a compromise solution, how about the Student Security Act of 2017? It was introduced by Republican Congressman Tom Garrett, and is a proposal that is fair:

The Student Security Program would offer student debtors the option of eliminating portions of their debt in exchange for delaying the age at which they will qualify for Social Security benefits. It would use immediate debt relief to cut mandatory spending in the future, and would create significant net savings over the lifetime of the program. Specifically, it would give $550 in student-loan forgiveness for each month a debtor was willing to raise his full retirement age, or $6,600 per year. For comparison, the average Social Security beneficiary receives $16,000 annually. Cosigners (parents, grandparents, etc.) could also participate, thereby resulting in earlier net savings for the program.​

​

The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary estimates this program would save $726 billion over a 75-year window. This is a static score, meaning it does not account for the economic benefits of debt relief, and it represents roughly 11 percent of what is required to make Social Security fully solvent for the next 75 years in its current form.​

​

The plan sets a maximum level of forgiveness of $40,150. This is high enough that 90 percent of those with student loans could fully erase their debt if they so chose, though it would entail delaying Social Security for up to six years and one month.​

This would solve the issue of debt without full cancellation, for those who are opposed to that on principle. While this serves to eliminate the Student Loan issue as a matter for current debt holders, what of future students? Kevin Williamson at National Review wrote an excellent article on the subject:

Here is a three-part plan for something practical the federal government could do to relieve college-loan debt. Step 1: The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans. Step 2: It should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions or, if that seems too heavy-handed, require the application of ordinary credit standards in any private educational lending, treating the student himself as the main credit risk in all cases, including those of secured or unsecured loans taken out by parents or other third parties for that student’s educational expenses. And 3: It should make student-loan debt dischargeable in ordinary bankruptcy procedures.​

​

The most likely end result of this would be the effective abolition of government- and bank-based financing of college education in all but the most narrowly defined circumstances. Good riddance. That leaves about $1.5 trillion in existing debt on the table, a very large number from which the federal government derives very little income, about 0.1 percent a year, or $1.5 billion — a fact that should enter into our calculations about whether we attempt to collect every nickel of that money or, perhaps, slowly forgive some of that debt for students who keep up with their payments and are otherwise good citizens, maybe at a rate of 2 percent of the principal a year.​

​

It is time to shut down the Bank of Uncle Stupid.​

​

Colleges will have two choices: Bring their tuitions down to a more reasonable rate or, if they are so inclined, work out financing arrangements of their own. This would not present too much trouble to splendidly endowed schools such as Harvard and Princeton, or to public schools with substantial resources at their disposal. A senior official of my alma mater, the University of Texas, once caused a stir by confessing — in public — that UT Austin doesn’t need to charge tuition at all but does so mainly as a population-control mechanism. The problem, he said, wasn’t money as such but the fact that the state would not let him raise admissions standards. Admittedly, UT has become a little more selective in recent years.​

This plan doesn't sound half bad.

 

[prinCZess]

No student-debt forgiveness should be instituted that doesn't in some form compensate those who didn't take loans for schooling (even if we grant that the availability and encouragement of such by government policy drove some of those who took loans into such who might otherwise have made better financial decisions).

Tying it to SS retirement is...something. But individuals under 30 today can in no way count on SS actually existing in thirty more years based on CBO and such. So it's...rather underhanded.

Flat forgiveness of [x] amount of debt schemes or anything else in that vein should be tied to [x] amount in cash payments or other benefit of some kind to those without such loans in the same age range or whatever metric is used to determine eligibility.
As I've most seen forgiveness schemes proposed, it amounts to massive subsidy of well-to-do families and their children (alongside universities which have progressively bloated themselves into their own unique messes--and not always just with US money either).

 

[History Learner]

No student-debt forgiveness should be instituted that doesn't in some form compensate those who didn't take loans for schooling (even if we grant that the availability and encouragement of such by government policy drove some of those who took loans into such who might otherwise have made better financial decisions).

Tying it to SS retirement is...something. But individuals under 30 today can in no way count on SS actually existing in thirty more years based on CBO and such. So it's...rather underhanded.

Flat forgiveness of [x] amount of debt schemes or anything else in that vein should be tied to [x] amount in cash payments or other benefit of some kind to those without such loans in the same age range or whatever metric is used to determine eligibility.
As I've most seen forgiveness schemes proposed, it amounts to massive subsidy of well-to-do families and their children (alongside universities which have progressively bloated themselves into their own unique messes--and not always just with US money either).

Make it a part of a general reform package then.

The issue with Social Security isn't so much that it's going to disappear but that existing revenue streams are only sufficient for roughly 75% of projected needs. That 25% missing means that, within the next 20 years or so, there will be the need to slash benefits if the issue is not fixed. The proposal with regards to the student debt issue would be sufficient to cover 11% of the funding shortfall; this, obviously, leaves 88% left to address. AARP helpfully keeps a listing of possible reforms online to fix social security, and you can fold the Student Loan plan in with doing such. Eliminating the Payroll Tax Cap and reducing benefits for high earners (means testing) would fix the funding shortfall.

Student debt holders get the benefit of relief at the cost of delaying retirement for a years while those who have already paid off their loans/society at large get to keep their social security benefits long term.