On Nov 12, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Ashleigh Bell <ashleighbell928@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tim, I came across some of your blog posts and thought you’d be interested in this infographic about avoiding student loan debt we recently published on Online College Plan: “The Debt Pool: Avoiding Student Loan Debt” http://www.onlinecollegeplan.com/features/avoiding-student-loan-debt/
We know visitors come to their favorite sites often and value new quality content that relates to their interests. That’s why we thought you would be interested in posting this graphic on your site to share with your readers.
Thank you, Ashleigh Bell
Anyways, Online College Plan.com seemed legit, so I checked it out. Here are a few links. Among other things, they seek to reduce or eliminate student debt. They also give some hints to how the different Presidential Candidates view college cost financing. Check these links out - it's worth a look:
http://www.onlinecollegeplan.com
http://www.onlinecollegeplan.com/features/avoiding-student-loan-debt/
http://westfacecollegeplanning.com/page/31
Above: Chart from Online College Plan on where the presidential wannabes stand on student loan debt.
Best solutions, IMO:
• Jeb Bush: drive down actual costs (there is little or no price competition for colleges, except for those that are on-line only)
• Trump: stop government profiting from student loans (to the extent that this is occurring, it is appalling)
• Fiorina: increase competition to lower prices (there is little or no price competition for colleges, except for those that are on-line only)
Worst solutions, IMO:
• Bernie Sanders: Tuition free (increases the government debt; decreases cost competition between schools)
• Hillary Clinton: government intervention (translation: we screwed it up - but we can make it even worse!)
• Rubio: Repayment of loans based on how much you make (bad in too many ways to list)
The Wall Street Journal wrote an opinion piece on how the $1,300,000,000,000 (that's $1.3 trillion for those who don't want to count zeros) in student loan debt has a negative impact on the innovation of those who are saddled with it at graduation. You can read that article by clicking here.
Student loans are economic poison to our recent college grads, and it's only getting worse. The solution is not to create more student tuition funding or loan forgiveness programs, or even to tax 529 plans (like the idea Prez Obama recently floated), but to bring down the cost of a college education. Sadly, nobody is doing that.
Let's look at some negative results from massive student loan debt.
- 70% of college grads have student loans, at an average load of $33,000
- These grads are delaying marriage, buying houses and starting businesses because of the burden
- 45% of grads are living at home with their parents
- entrepreneurial business ownership has dropped from 6.1% to 3.6%
- students without college loan debt are 63% more likely to have started at least one business
The article gives the following recommendations, which I generally agree with:
- Universities have a social and moral obligation to expand access and reduce costs/debt
- Students (and their parents) need to be counselled on the dangers of borrowing
A weak job market for young Americans has left college grads saddled with massive student loan debt and poor job prospects. The burden of high tuitions and student loan debt must be alleviated, and soon. Is anybody out there listening?
Why is a proposal for free tuition a terrible thing or for that matter, as eluded to, a ding against Senator Bernie Sanders and current contender in the U.S. Presidential race who elevated the topic back into the limelight?
ReplyDeleteFirst, student debt load at the individual level has increased enormously as the graphics show. It is worth noting college debt is also part of the living wage debate. Americans are in the "damned if they do and damned if they don't" quagmire.
While an education is not a guarantee, it does provide a greater likelihood of receiving higher economic returns and an enhanced ability to pay for the necessities of life. Republican counter-claim is that people in service sector jobs do not deserve wages necessary to pay for the costs of living. We simply cannot have it both ways.
The "decision" to convert our economy to service industries by off shoring manufacturing - which was associated with higher wages and the back bone of the U.S. Middle Class (post WW-II) was unilaterally made by Boards of Directors. The decisions were not primarily based on which "tax bracket" corporate profit was included. Off shoring was a response to clear animosity toward labor and environmental protection laws in THIS country! We have been on a downward spiral to "Third World" status ever since.
One of my family member's comments is a case in point. He eluded that his certain skills he offers to his employer provide a higher wage and he is worth even more (maybe not from his employer's point of view but certainly from his). So, the argument goes, people should not expect to flip burgers forever. The assumption is then, we expect people to get a higher education, post - high school. Even politicians tell us that getting an education is necessary (and maybe, just maybe is the path to higher wages). However, "don't dare question how much the educational institutions" want to charge in order to get those skills.
Employers express an interest in hiring people who have skills, too. Even when the educational level is not particularly demanding for a certain employer, that employer has some base line assurances about an employee or candidate. Through the process of acquiring a higher education, an individual will be an all-round better employee. Everyone can see the benefits, therefore we simply need to change the debate.
The predominate argument today (in parallel used against wage increases also) was established by the Republican anti-tax rhetoric: "why should I pay for someone else's education." The new argument is "Invest in America" by investing in our fellow Americans. It was not too long ago that Germany with its free tuition program already in place offered the same opportunity to attend its institutions for free to American students. If we do not have the political or social will to respond then it would be fair to say, America better brace for some serious "brain drain."
Any proposal for free college tuition must also address the cost side. Simply put, anything that is clearly a necessity should not be priced like it is a luxury. The wealth disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest is a global problem. We can't expect people to pay "whatever the cost" and then complain when people simply can't afford to.
Thanks for your rather long reply.
ReplyDeleteWhen I went to college in the late 1970's, a student (like myself) could work enough hours to pay for school while going full-time, which I did at UCLA, while earning a BS in Math and Computer Science. With the higher cost of UCLA today, you would need a $25 to $30 per hour job to do so. What changed? Relative to income, higher education has become bloated and expensive. Why? Because, at least in California, it has edged out all non-government education. Only the Stanfords and USCs of the world can compete with government-subsidized college education, and there are no checks on the cost to go to college.
In my experience, if you get something for free, then that's what it's worth. What's wrong with working hard and earning your degree? The wussification of American appears to begin in college, where the "safe zones" and "micro aggressions" have me puzzled, to put it mildly. When you work part-time and go to school full-time, you don't have time or energy for cringing or crying at the sight of "Trump 2016" written in chalk. Get a bucket of water and end the chalk message if you don't like it. And no, I'm not a Trump supporter either.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, there is nothing wrong, per se, with "free" college tuition (although somebody has to pay for it, and it's not really "free"). If the government was responsible with my taxpayer money and was debt free, I'd say "let the people decide". However, we are about $21,000,000,000,000 (that's $21 trillion) in federal debt that has to be paid back. Clearly, we can't afford the additional tab for "free college for everyone" without adding additional debt. Facts have shown that even if you confiscate EVERY PENNY earned by the 1%-ers, you can't come close to paying down that debt. The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money.
ReplyDelete