Off topic, nice debate on if to many kids are going to college (which includes some discussion if our college model is obsolete): https://youtu.be/7VTQ-dBYSlQ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

```Administrative costs, meanwhile, accounted for 8 percent of total national health expenditures in the U.S. For the other countries, they ranged from 1 percent to 3 percent. ```

@Putz without a freeze there will be people paying interest for the rest of their lives unless they're bailed out.

We're going to get to a point where people are going to need a means to escape from the hole thats been dug. It's either freeze interest, which is largely going to not burdain tax payers, or some other program is going to be voted on that uses tax dollars to pay off their loans.

Without doing something, then socialist policies WILL be put into place. It's inevitable.

And also there is something unethical about dooming people to be perpetually in debt for the rest of their lives because they made a mistake when they're less than 22

@DJ_Anuz

1) freezing the interest is a socialist policy. Your just picking which policy to implement
2) freezing interest is a burdain to the tax payer. Money has alternative uses. If you do an ROI on rhat money im confident interest free loans will not score well

The average school debt from borrowers (i.e. the amount is inflated because it doesnt include non borrowers) is 37k. It shouldn't take a lifetime to pay off 37k

And if your argument is a person should not be held accountable for a decision they make at 22. Then your real argument shouldn't be about a freeze, it should be to raise the age of emancipation

1: freezing interest after 10 years is not socialism. There is no redistribution of resources.
2: freezing interest after 10 years is not a burdain on the tax payer. It doesn't touch tax dollars. It might cause lenders to hike up interest rates, but that doesn't affect tax payers.

The average school debt is 37k because you have a generation of older people that went to school when costs were cheaper.

The average millennial has upwards of 50k.

You're strawmanning if freezing interest after ten years is not holding students accountable. You still have to pay off the loan, and your still paying over an extra 50 percent of the loan in interest.

It is not a strawman it is fact. The debate was on student debt not student debt for people in a certain age group.

So your now wantseperate policies based on age group, but not government backed, just federal government regulated, with no cap on interest rates or fees but a freeze on interest accrual after 10 years?

Do i have that right? I want to make sure i understand your debate platform

The solutions are easy

Stop the bleed, can't heal the wound until bleedin stops
1) no more federal backed loans, loans should be subject to market forces
2) parents need to take ownership of their kids education. If the schools aren't preparing kids to make education decisions then they need to get involved in the PTA, etc to get the right types of education in the schools, and if the school aren't providing the education get the education outside of the school
3) corporations and industries need to push for educational standards from higher education. This can be dome through industry certification programs and placing certification requirements on job postings

Heal the wounds
1) government will have to continue to own existing loans unless they can be sold at reasonable prices
2) government can continue offering payoff options. Not that there are already several options on the books such as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and College Loan Repayment Programs (CLRP)

None of those actually help people that already have debt except for the CLRP, but that's limited in scope and without an expansion of "free college for all" won't solve the problem that's knocking at our door.
You can't sell existing student loans unless you bring back indentured servitude.

Most millennials I know that have student loan debt have parents that are still paying off their loans so I don't see how putting the blame on their parents solves anything.

So you continue to not clearly define your position.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program does help with existing debt

When i say sell existing loans, i'm talking about the government selling them to private institutions

What is the problem knocking at our door? You haven't clearly defined you position, what problem you hope to resolve, or why your idea is superior to any other.

Millenials with parenta who have student debt supports why parents should be involved in educating kids about student debt not an excuse for why they can't. They know first hand the long term impact of the decision take out loans for education