Wayne State and their never ending tuition increases

[Wesley Mouch]

You're right. It's all those God damned Poors who keep driving up the cost of everything by getting themselves into hock for an education and a place to live. When will these peasants realize that normal lives are only for people born into money?

GP, I also strongly believe that your 'peasants' deserve a quality education. My father went from abject rural poverty to the college educated professional via GI Bill. If you want to help those in poverty, give them an education. Just pay the college costs with NO LOAN.

The loan you seem to love is the real oppression of the poor. You can squirm, but supporting student loans is supporting unaffordable college education on the backs of the working class.

JBmcB: Were you sleeping through the real estate bubble? The government artificially kept lending rates low, housing prices shot up. Float the rate and housing prices stabilize where they should be. Same situation with student loans - the misuse/overuse of artificially low rates is pushing up prices. This is pretty basic economics.

For a second, put down your rhetoric and your prejudices about the world. This is pretty basic economics, and if you accept this, you will realize the folly of much of our public policy that says it helps the poor, but really just oppresses them.

And while I'm on my soapbox, can we get rid of the mortgage interest deduction that supports the rich and inflates home prices for working-class?

[ghettopalmetto]

GP, I also strongly believe that your 'peasants' deserve a quality education. My father went from abject rural poverty to the college educated professional via GI Bill. If you want to help those in poverty, give them an education. Just pay the college costs with NO LOAN.

The loan you seem to love is the real oppression of the poor. You can squirm, but supporting student loans is supporting unaffordable college education on the backs of the working class.

Believe me, I know all about student loans. I would prefer that we were like any other civilized nation, and provide low-cost of free university education to our citizens. Such a thing is considered "socialist" in good ole Murrica, though.

I have this crazy theory that, when states start cutting taxes, there isn't enough money for everything. Higher education funding is one of the first items on the chopping list. Given the alternative [[not receiving a degree), student loans are a compromise. But to blame loans for rising tuition costs? There's no evidence to support that.

[Wesley Mouch]

Believe me, I know all about student loans. I would prefer that we were like any other civilized nation, and provide low-cost of free university education to our citizens. Such a thing is considered "socialist" in good ole Murrica, though.

I have this crazy theory that, when states start cutting taxes, there isn't enough money for everything. Higher education funding is one of the first items on the chopping list. Given the alternative [[not receiving a degree), student loans are a compromise. But to blame loans for rising tuition costs? There's no evidence to support that.

GP, we agree on low-cost university education. The question is how to get there.

Cost cutting is almost always done to vital services first. Education, police, fire. Why? Because the people in charge certainly never see themselves as something to cut. They cut what most pains the taxpayers. That's how you get more revenues. Millage for schools has a chance. Millage for pension benefits for accountants, less sellable.

I do hope you take seriously the discussion about why student loans [[and health insurance and mortgages) do help reduce affordability. If you want to achieve social good, you will only do so if you accept the laws of economics. Otherwise you are on a threadmill. More loans, higher tuition require more loans and then higher tuition.

But I do accept that loans are here to stay. So what we've done is accept that there's a social value to education [[good), and we've chosen to have everyone pay for that value is a non-progressive way. Me, libertarian, think that this should be funded by general tax revenues that are progressive -- as they should be.

[ghettopalmetto]

GP, we agree on low-cost university education. The question is how to get there.

Cost cutting is almost always done to vital services first. Education, police, fire. Why? Because the people in charge certainly never see themselves as something to cut. They cut what most pains the taxpayers. That's how you get more revenues. Millage for schools has a chance. Millage for pension benefits for accountants, less sellable.

I do hope you take seriously the discussion about why student loans [[and health insurance and mortgages) do help reduce affordability. If you want to achieve social good, you will only do so if you accept the laws of economics. Otherwise you are on a threadmill. More loans, higher tuition require more loans and then higher tuition.

No, I don't take it seriously. If I did, then I would logically have to agree that providing FREE university education to hundreds of thousands of veterans under the G.I. Bill would have caused astronomical tuition increases after World War II.

You keep talking about these "laws of economics". Where's the equation that shows tuition increasing due to student loans?

[Wesley Mouch]

No, I don't take it seriously. If I did, then I would logically have to agree that providing FREE university education to hundreds of thousands of veterans under the G.I. Bill would have caused astronomical tuition increases after World War II.

You keep talking about these "laws of economics". Where's the equation that shows tuition increasing due to student loans?

Would you not agree that student loans make available more money for education for the same number of students? What happens when there's more money available chasing the same number of schools?

GI Bill did no doubt effect on price of college -- but it also increased the number of students dramatically. Increased money in the system PLUS more students than otherwise would have attended.

Everything you do in a market has a consequence. More money = higher prices.

[ghettopalmetto]

Would you not agree that student loans make available more money for education for the same number of students? What happens when there's more money available chasing the same number of schools?

GI Bill did no doubt effect on price of college -- but it also increased the number of students dramatically. Increased money in the system PLUS more students than otherwise would have attended.

Everything you do in a market has a consequence. More money = higher prices.

Then why don't you reserve equal grief for the progeny of the wealthy, whose parents pay cash no matter what the tuition, [[thus making a university education price inelastic to them)?

I argue that the availability of student loans--much like the G.I. Bill--has increased the number of students enrolled in universities, and thus likewise increased the amount of incoming tuition dollars.

[JBMcB]

Then why don't you reserve equal grief for the progeny of the wealthy, whose parents pay cash no matter what the tuition, [[thus making a university education price inelastic to them)?

Because they are a small minority. 5% of the student population having lots of money won't affect the overall price much. Giving 100% of the student population nearly unlimited, federally underwritten borrowing capacity does.

I argue that the availability of student loans--much like the G.I. Bill--has increased the number of students enrolled in universities, and thus likewise increased the amount of incoming tuition dollars.

Increasing the number of students who attend costs the university more money [[more professors, more rooms, more support staff, more services, etc...) Increasing tuition does not.

I'm all for letting poor people go to college. Targeted scholarships and grants work pretty well. Letting everyone borrow money cheaply does not work well [[but universities *LOVE* it)