The further you get from the initial purchase date the dollar will have a lower value, and in theory you should be making more money.
Plus, even tbills are returning over 5% and are state tax exempt.
But I agree that most debt is probably bad to have.
I always thought the snowball method was dumb but as time goes on I can see how it makes sense psychologically, even if not mathematically.
What I didn't like about his take was that it also kind of also excluded getting into like $20,000-$40,000 of debt to go to a decent state school. That's a bad take; getting a degree (at least in a technical field) substantially increases your earning potential, and while $40,000 is a lot of money, it's not out of reach for virtually anyone working in tech or engineering or something adjacent, at least not in the US.
I guess my frustration with his perspective is that it felt extremely reductive; he acts like the only student loan debt you can get into is Harvard-level stuff, but I think that's just not true, and not even the average case. Most people don't get into Harvard, (I think) most people who go to college end up at a state or local university, and as such they're not getting into the obscene levels of debt that you'd get from these yuppie private schools, particularly if they state within state.
of course the degree matters. You pay about the same for art and engineering degrees but one will earn far more than the other.
You can easily get well into the 6 figures of debt even at state schools now. You'll find even rando state universities are hitting $30k+/year. Education costs have done exactly what you'd expect them to do when you convince people something is priceless and then give them unlimited and near unconditional loans to buy it.
I don't really see the point in this when you can instead attend English language programs in e.g. Europe or Asia and pay less for your entire education than you'd pay for a semester at rando state school in the US. Do a work-study program and you could graduate with a tidy chunk of change saved up, instead of graduating buried in enough debt to buy a house.
The ironic part is that this advice is even more pertinent for those coming from low income backgrounds, or from parents with limited education. But they're probably the people most unlikely to take advantage of such options, if not only because they probably just don't consider it.
That said, I'm a huge fan of European/UK universities. I do graduate school in the UK, it's a lot cheaper than a comparable program in a lot of American universities. I've been trying to get my considerably-younger brother in law to consider applying to European schools.
[1] https://catalog.sunyempire.edu/undergraduate/tuition-fees/#t...
[2] https://admissions.fsu.edu/first-year/finances/
ETA:
Sorry, I didn't see the "housing" part of your first sentence. That certainly does make the costs add up, particularly if you stay in the dorms, which I think are kind of a scam in most schools. I think to save money, a lot of people would benefit from trying to stay with their parents a bit longer instead of partaking in the dorms.
He acknowledges this. It's about the psychological effect of seeing your list of debts grow smaller. I think a big part of his audience are people who have historically been very bad with money, which is why some of his advice seems strange to people who are already financially responsible. People with a bunch of maxed out credit cards and loans on ATVs and crap.
If your loans have a minimum payment and a penalty for missing a payment above and beyond interest (which seems to be common for loans in the US), the snowball method gives you more flexibility. Paying off a loan completely eliminates that part of your monthly minimum payment.
If in 2 or 5 years your income decreases unexpectedly (layoff, etc.), but by that point you've completely eliminated 1 or more loans, you're more likely to be able to continue making minimum payments.