What does that article about the federal reserve have to do?

Also I generally check out when someone starts their article with "The Zionists/Globalist's..."

I'm in agreement that the Federal reserve is sketchy. How we go about abolishing it is the question.

Yet another moron, color me surprised

Seems this place is a hangout for literal retards

Yet here you are

Not for long, this place is a shithole for donkeys

>Tags me in post completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
>Calls me a moron.

The freeze idea is pretty good depending on how you structure it. I mean the market has already created a freeze solution in the credit markets. Fair enough it's generally for revolving debt, but I think we can make a special case here. Also there are 0% bonds so the argument over no return on principle is useless.
All you have to do is backload the interest, give them say 5 years interest free to pay off their debt, if they don't all that interest accrues at once. Many thing already do this. It is a FURTHER incentive for early payments in-fact PAYING OFF all the debt.
Realistically, I don't think this would happen forever as the next generation won't be stupid about college because they will see what happened to this generation.
The issue isn't people getting stupid degrees, it's adverse incentives to get the degrees in the first place. After all a Woman's study degree has more weight than most STEM degrees now. If you want to talk about quality of education that's a moot argument at this point. You could even say that the market is valuing Woman's studies over STEM, but we both know that's intellectually dishonest if you just do some basic research into government regulations.

Furthermore you could utilize actual puts to hedge against default on any of these student loans that don't do early payment
Realistically student loans are an anomaly in the debt market as far as they are structured
Why? Government ensures payment, any other debt instrument would utilize a CDS or some other hedge in case of default
That's part of the reason why the mortgage crisis happened because government backed mortgages were slapped together with normal mortgages

Furthermore, you want to go into why revenue at major companies isn't growing much anymore? They don't fund R&D as much because they are forced by the government to retain these diversity admin positions or get fined. What this results in is inevitable cuts to the R&D workforce because R&D takes years to return on investment, look at Boeing they literally slapped bigger engines on a smaller plane and called it a new plane. Where were they spending their money? Lobbyists and government compliance people. I mean aviation is heavily regulated and they need to comply with certain regulations to work with the FAA, but this isn't FAA spending it's diversity spending on ensuring that they comply with Washington's minimum wage laws and diversity laws.
All these things work together to form a hydra that is slowing bleeding the economy dry. Companies don't spend money on training anymore because they spend it on stock buybacks and compliance instead. That's why degrees are required for so many positions because it forms a "basic level" since the companies can't afford, or be assed, to train the new people themselves.

@DJ_Anuz student loans are not predatory. You do not have to take them, predatory would be taking advantage of someone in "need".

Freezing makes no sense becauss in order to loan money you need to still recover a certain amount of profit per year over the life of the loan. A freeze only pushes the profit into the earlier years of the loan (higher apr or increased fees). Else it cannot compete with other investment opportunities.

You also continue to blame society for getting into this mess as a means to put it on society to fix it (which would be a seperate debate). That does not change the idea that a freeze is a bad idea.

A 50% return on a 30 year loan is garbage. No institution would accept that. The rate of return would have to remain competitive with other investment opportunities.

You should be paying well over 300% interest in a 30 year loan. That's how loans work especially high risk unsecured loans. Look at buying a house, you will do near that and a house is considered a "secure" loan.

@IImploreYouToRemoveYourself companies ask for degrees and want to limit the amount of training they have to not because they can't afford it (they just pass costs on to the consumer) but because it makes good business sense, they are hiring the most skilled/educated person they can for the role. And if there is a surplus of college educated people on the market, they will start with them. Btw college educated doesn't mean no training required. It means they are (theoretically) more capable to learn quickly, know how to have a professional conversation, have some familiarity with industry terminology, are interested enough in the career to make a personal investment into it, etc

Off topic, nice debate on if to many kids are going to college (which includes some discussion if our college model is obsolete): https://youtu.be/7VTQ-dBYSlQ

@Putz A degree is merely an economic signal, and given how much turnover companies have with these positions: average tenure at google is 2 years - average cost of simply FINDING someone is $4k that's before wages, benefits, H1B. It doesn't make any sense for a company to hire someone with no experience, which is why companies are now hiring people with no college degrees but they have years of experience, especially in things like programming. There are certain degrees that are required for regulations: JD for law, MD for medical practice, DDS for dentistry, you need an engineering or science degree to patent anything (legally), engineering degree is required for PE designation, but 90% of degrees are useless as they only serve as an economic signal that someone went through 4 years of something. Which is where the problems stack up for a lot of businesses, they simply throw bodies at the problem. Lots of sales positions are hiring right now and there is no mentorship or training for a lot of those positions. Sales is not something that needs a degree in general. Except for government required licenses.
As far as professional conversations, universities are a bubble they are not going to learn that unless they intern, which at that point why not start out, sort of Euro-style and have a co-op? Familiarity with industry terminology is again better learned in industry as academia is generally BEHIND what industry is doing

So @DJ_Anuz if your saying the government should no longer secure loans. The can we assume your saying the government should regulate the terms of the loans?

@IImploreYouToRemoveYourself i get that, most degree requests are based on an applicant not having other more prefered work indicators first. A degree will always hold more weight on your first job, after which your experience begins to hold more weight. There are exceptions where government licensing or hiring rules (unions and government regulation) can dictate the minimum education requirements

Also while it is a nice debate, it's about the philosophy around whether too many people are going to college. I encourage people to read "The Problem of an Excess of Educated Men in Western Europe, 1800-1850" by Lenore O'Boyle . It highlights the historical fact that when too much percentage of the population are highly educated with no jobs that require that amount of education, people get a little antsy. There was a followup study by a Russian University that analyzed the Arab spring and found that in Egypt there was also a high proportion of college educated people compared to positions in the economy. Furthermore, most high level members of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban are COLLEGE Educated.

Also that is why certification has grown in popularity and will continue to grow in popularity assuming the standards aren't to relaxed. They tend to be more industry specific

To many educated people is the result of interfering with market forces in education

Look at the ratio of post secondary degrees held in the US and canada vs the rest of the world. We tend to rank well above the rest of the world in degrees (that does not mean the quality is better, also a seperate debate)

A degree is only valuable in the first job IF the government requires it.
The US is actually weird when it comes to medical education and legal education. Most other countries have apprenticeship systems, this is not to say they also have undergraduate medical and legal programs. Also the reason I'm focusing on these is A. required licensing B. high cost in the US C. Lots of debt to acquire licensure in the US. If you exam for instance the Miami-Dade area there's actually a lot of Cuban doctors: as in literal doctors that studied in cuba that have immigrated. Point being these people followed the cuban medical education model, were able to obtain their skillset at lower cost than a US doctor, and are able to lower the cost of medical services in that area due to essentially educational arbitrage.
Conversely let's look at high cost of healthcare areas, Phoenix, Arizona is actually fairly high cost for healthcare primarily because it's immigrant population is made up of people who work in the unskilled labor sector, whereas only native high cost US doctors make up their medical market. This decreases cost of construction and housing (also due to lax zoning laws), but increases the cost of medical services.
This isn't about immigration, but more about why the US is so expensive in certain areas, it is due to the fact that we have arbitrarily determined that our training should be expensive. Other countries have made it work at much lower costs, by simply attaching people without skills to people that have skills and having them learn on the job.

Healthcare in phx is also high because of default payments by illegal immigrants. Basically legit customers are subsidizing illegal immigrant healthcare indirectly. Essentially cost of defaults is socialized across the paying customers since services cannot be denied to high risk of default patients

Okay then why is it not high in Miami?

🆙 | **IImploreYouNotToStep leveled up!**

I dont know miamis market, id have to trust your assessment about using low cost non native medical providers

And as far as too much higher education being a result market interference, the issue stems back to the birth of public education. The concept itself was useful back in the 1700-1800s when there was a low literacy rate, but now our literacy rate is going down. The world has changed a lot since then and out high education model is built off the PUBLIC education model. Whereas these days we have online courses for free where people can learn anything. Realistically having a third of colleges and providing more online content would be more cost effective.

Well where's a nearby major city that you know about, because Portland has higher costs and Seattle, than LA it really does pop up again and again

If you want a counter example you could use Rochester MN, but that's only because the Mayo Clinic sits there and invites a whole bunch of people

@IImploreYouToRemoveYourself using the public model is because of non market forces. So you assessment is correct, literally business should be dictating the higher education model not government. That would be a market force

The difference though is my argument is that the education, health care, and I guess we can legal ( but that industry is fucked anyway), industries are anti-competitive, i.e they're rigged currently. Therefore, arguing about individual responsibility in a rigged system in my opinion is pointless. The only way to win in a rigged system is to not participate

Im not disagreeing with you on the costs of licensing as a basis for higher costs. I was only pointing out what i know to be one of the reasons phx is higher compared to non border cities

Ive experienced it first hand in guam where the licensing board consists of 5 of the 6 licensed people on the island. So they literally control the level of competition their businesses have

Yes but that underlying reason doesn't appear with other cities with high illegal immigration. I'd cede the point if I said El Paso, but El Paso also doesn't have a lot of medical services. Phoenix has a bunch of old people ( who could be skilled doctors)and several national research hospitals therefore, you'd think prices would be lower. The old people will raise rates because they'll use it more, but florida has old people too. Though miami definitely tilts younger

Pacific Island countries can be really crazy with economics, like Tahiti is a banana republic basically

Guam is a us territory

It's like old Hawaii there's a couple industries that dominate and then basically dictate everything

Well so are Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Wake Islands, etc.

Anyhow this is way off the origional debate plantation. How do we know when a debate is over in this silly channel :p

As for the freeze, i would propose no freeze, let the loan issuer and the loan taker negotiate the terms of the loan. This would allow other market ideas such as income based repayment into the marketplace

As for the freeze I don't care about the freeze, only that there are other debt based products that freeze interest rates for a certain period of time. I think the best solution for the current bubble is to establish a federal private organization and have them begin putting the debt on secondary markets, maybe collateralize it. Sure, there'll be fire at the disco, and panic at the taco bell, but at least the bubble can be slowly deflated rather than burst at once.

Also @Putz here if you want to use medical price data for debates: https://www.healthcostinstitute.org/blog/entry/hmi-2019-service-prices