I mean, seriously. I was stupid enough to take on the burden of student loans. At least give me the dignity of having the responsibility of paying them off.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion, this is a study supported fact.
The right answer is to remove or strictly limit tuition for public schools, as many countries do and as the US has in its own recent history.
During much of the 1960s (in the early years of the Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-1975), the three public higher education systems in California – the University of California System (UC), the California State College System (CSUC), and the state’s community colleges – did not charge tuition for in-state residents. Yes, students paid some nominal (called “incidental”) fees. But tuition, we as think about it and know it today, was not an essential part of the financing plan for public higher education in California five decades ago.
The transition to student fees (a rose by any other name?) in the UC and CSUC systems began shortly after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as governor of California in 1967. As reported by the NY Times in 1982, Gov. Reagan “fought hard in the Legislature to impose tuition at four-year colleges.” He lost the battle for tuition, but the California Legislature “agreed to increase student registration fees, which [previously] had been nominal.” The official “no tuition” policy in California’s community colleges ended in 1982.
This is the answer. Yes, public universities should be free. UC Berkeley was able to discover plutonium and 15 other elements with no tuition, more than any other university (still no Stanfurdium).
Gotta say, “college tuition” was not on my “things Reagan ruined” bingo card.
Think of pretty much anything that someone could point to in the years since Reagan as a sign of the fall of civilization and you can be reasonably confident that Reagan is behind it somehow. It’s like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game for politics.
Yeah - that arguably would be cheaper, and it definitely would be better for society as a whole.
That’s entirely irrelevant though, because it’s not going to happen.
The primary reason that decently-paying jobs have become so much less common is that, over the last few decades in particular, the money that would’ve paid decent wages has been diverted to pay truly obscene salaries to a handful of executives.
And the people drawing those obscene salaries, and making general pay decisions for corporations, tend to be, quite seriously, psychopaths.
A person who has morals, principles, integrity and empathy will exercise self-restraint - they’ll have particular choices that they simply will not make.
A person without any of those qualities - a psychopath - will not be constrained. They will be entirely free to choose any course of action that will benefit them in any way, entirely regardless of the consequences to others.
So all other things being more or less equal, paychopaths will have a strategic advantage in competitions for position in hierarchies like corporations or governments.
In a sound society, that advantage will be blunted by the simple fact that people with morals, principles, integrity and empathy find them and their tactics reprehensible. That has historically made them more the exception than the rule.
In the 80s in the US, there was a fundamental change. Society was sold the idea that “greed is good” - that winning is everything and to the victor goes the spoils and watch out for number 1 and so on - essentially psychopathic views were marketed as virtues. Successfully.
And throughout that period, enough psychopaths succeeded that theirs became the dominant viewpoint, particularly in the largest corporations (or the most rapacious, and thus most successful throughout the takeover era of corporate consolidation). And since then they’ve just grown more entrenched and more self-serving, and richer, and more powerful.
Which brings me back to the point - yours is a relatively sound viewpoint, but it’s entirely irrelevant, because the people who control the power by which such a thing might be accomplished are psychopaths, and they are not going to act in a way that might diminish by even a fraction their undeserved and destructive wealth and privilege, even if it’s not only for the good of society as a whole, but then necessarily for their own long-term good. They just aren’t psychologically or morally equipped to make that choice. And they control the power in our society, so nobody else can meaningfully make that choice.
So really, the only remaining option is the same one that eventually befell Sumer and Egypt and Athens and Rome - societal collapse. Just as was the case with them, the upper classes have become too entrenched, too self-serving and too greedy to make the choices that would save their civilization, and nobody else has the power to overcome them. And just as was the case with those civilizations, the common people, between being confused and being self-servingly manipulated and misled, blame subsets of each other instead of the people who really bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for the woes facing their civilization. So just as was the case with their societies, things will just get uglier and uglier until they finally fall apart. Like it or not.
Have a nice day anyway though, because that’s really all you can do. We can’t stop the relentless downhill slide, but we can at least try not to make each other unnecessarily miserable along the way.
-
Because your student loans can not be discharged in bankruptcy, you have personally assumed all of the risk, as such your interest rate should be zero.
-
Therefore the most fair and equitable solution is to retroactively set the interest rate to zero, and refund all interest payments to the borrowers.
What say you?
-
I ought to report this post for violating the rules. It’s not an unpopular opinion. 👍🏻
