Yes. I'd have a lot more compassion about the debt forgiveness if they were enacting some plan to FIX the problem at the same time.
The problem is that typically the very same people who are opposed to debt forgiveness are also opposed government-sponsored higher education that's free for students, like higher school and earlier; likewise, the very same people who are in favor of debt forgiveness also advocate government-sponsored higher education.
I don't think there is a fix as long as higher education is treated like a luxury good. And if that's society's choice, so be it, but then I don't want to hear another word about so-called "meritocracy" when it's pay-to-play.
I considered the alternative in my second paragraph. You didn't respond to that point. How do you reconcile meritocracy with pay-to-play?
An idea solution would more closely connect the buyer (student) to the consequences of their decision (both good and bad) while holding the seller (university) accountable for the quality of their product/service.
Until you can address all three, there's no solution just pandering after the fact.
> I considered the alternative in my second paragraph. You didn't respond to that point. How do you reconcile meritocracy with pay-to-play?
Because it wasn't worth responding to. Most meritocracy has pieces that are pay to play. Maybe it shouldn't but acting like it doesn't is foolish.
The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?
If you're just going to be dismissive, why did you respond at all?
> Most meritocracy has pieces that are pay to play
Which other "pieces" come with a lifetime of debt?
> The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?
Why is that more interesting?
I didn't initially and chose to focus on the productive bit. You demanded a response.
From a policy perspective, the question we should be asking is "how much does society benefit from college graduates?"
If there's a net benefit to people attending college, then society should be funding it, as it's essentially "making a profit".
I also agree that changes to the funding model need to address the spiraling costs of attendance. But, I also believe much of that spiral is due to the funding model (near unlimited government backing and lack of dischargeability for the borrower).
Health care and higher education have moved hard the other direction.
No clue if privatization would work here - not pitching that - but the current solution has failed us and the "make it free" mantra doesn't work as long as the price is spiraling out of control.
How so? I have no option to get public health care that I'm aware of; it's actually hard to imagine getting health care without being forced to pay a premium to a private company.
And since you pay a fraction of the actual costs of the service for the public plans, the government subsidizes the rest.
The government is rarely the service provider for most of what they "provide" - roads are built by construction firms, medical care is mostly private doctors (the VA and HHS has some), the TSA is replaced by private firms in some places, and even nuclear missiles are manufactured by companies.
That's a deliberate policy choice. It doesn't have to be that way, but our politicians tend to be corrupted by campaign contributions and lucrative post-political jobs or (inclusive or) free-market ideologues who demand contractor bidding for any government services.
That's a theory.
But as a former Fed, let me propose a different hypothesis: The people who want to do good work, want to grow, and want to push to the next level (whatever that is), don't go into government. Or if they do, they don't stay.
But don't believe me: if you know any US veterans, ask them about their experiences with the VA. Ask them if they've ever gone when it wasn't the only option.
In general, we give a lot of lip service to "supporting the troops", but mostly society doesn't give a crap about them after they come home. The only time this was different was during the World Wars period, where a large % of the male population was drafted. Veterans had political power then. Now that our military itself has been largely privatized and made up of volunteers, often themselves looking for financial opportunities, veterans are largely forgotten, except to make oneself feel good by "thanking them for their service". But if they're, say, permanently disabled from wounds? Welp, tough luck.
The other veterans in my area (that I know and talk to) also seem to have good experiences with our VA healthcare. Just chipping in to say that while there is a lot to criticize about the VA, there are things to praise too.
To be clear, I am not taking an extremist position here. There is value in having an educated populace and students should have some coursework in a broad range of liberal arts subjects. But for college majors we have to be more pragmatic at both an individual and social policy level.