[sevenf0ur]

A college graduate will earn $900,000 more than a non-college graduate over their lifetime.

> You can make a higher income than another person but still be poorer than them because of debt.

Maybe we should focus our money on making college costs more affordable rather than forgiving loans and signaling to universities and students that it's safe to take on more debt?

[lapcat]

> A college graduate will earn $900,000 more than a non-college graduate over their lifetime.

A male college graduate, on average. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education...

"Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor's degrees earn $630,000 more. Men with graduate degrees earn $1.5 million more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with graduate degrees earn $1.1 million more."

Of course these are just averages. There's no guarantee that any given person will earn even a penny more. Not to mention that not everyone who goes to college even finishes their degree, but they accumulate the debt regardless.

> Maybe we should focus our money on making college costs more affordable rather than forgiving loans

Why not both?

The thing is, the people who make a lot of money after college are able to pay off their debt. The real problem is the people who get stuck with debt for decades, unable to pay it off. It's a lifetime burden. Senior citizens are a very fast growing group of student loan debtors.

I don't necessarily believe that you should forgive student loan debt the minute someone walks out of graduation. But what about decades later?

Anyway, it's important to remember that these lifetime earnings numbers don't include college costs. You have to subtract those. Unless your parents pay for your college, in which case you have no student loan debt.

[suture]

A large percent of students never get a degree. Here’s the best statistics that I could find. It talks about 6 year graduation rates but I think a large percent of those who don’t graduate within 6 years never graduate.

https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=40

[sevenf0ur]

> Why not both?

Because forgiving loans is a moral hazard. It signals to new college students that they can take out more debt and it signals to universities that they can raise tuition.

[lapcat]

Saddling people with a lifetime of student loan debt is a moral hazard that has already occurred. Moreover, college students are already taking out more debt, and universities are already raising tuition, despite the lack of forgiveness.

Would a one-time forgiveness cause an increase in college costs? I don't know, maybe? And if it did, by how much? I don't know, do you? Maybe the problem needs to get worse in order to put pressure on Congress to finally address it comprehensively. And if Congress still refuses to address the problem despite its getting worse, then you can no longer argue that we need to wait for a comprehensive solution, because that's not coming. Perhaps the occasional forgiveness event is the best and only thing we can do in the face of persistent gridlock. I hope not, but...

[bumby]

I'm not saying you hold this opinion, but policy-makers seem to have little issue with moral hazard when it comes to bailing out "too big to fail" corporations. I get the moral hazard argument, but if it's truly a first-principle it should probably be applied more consistently.