Additionally, Dora Gicheva suggests that each $10,000 in additional student debt decreases the borrower’s long-term probability of marriage by 7 percentage points. A 2010 poll found that 85 percent of college graduates were planning to move back home after graduation. (Dickler 2010). The high unemployment rates and low income of new graduates are the leading causes behind these survey results. But having large student loans can certainly make things worse.
And from Brookings:
Dew (2008) finds a negative correlation between reduced marital satisfaction and student loan debt, positing that increased stress related to consumer debt—including student loans—could diminish marital satisfaction. About 14 percent of borrowers surveyed in 2002 reported delaying marriage due to student loan debt, up from 9 percent 15 years earlier. Over the same period, the share of borrowers who reported that they delayed having children due to student loans jumped from 12 percent to 21 percent (Baum and O’Malley 2003).
The current system is a machine for creating Democratic voters. But Republican politicians have been bought off by its semi-privatized nature, which creates a lot of for-profit opportunities for firms employing Republican lobbyists. The solution is perhaps to let the Democrats de-privatize the system, and then the Republicans can oppose it on general principles.
As it is now, colleges ramp up tuition on the belief that student loans will always cover it – that students can always take out more to pay for their splurging. In short, there is zero incentive for cost control. Due to this belief, the University that I attended looked more like a resort than a school, with new rec centers, dorm complexes that you could mistake for palaces, continual construction of ever more opulent facilities and Greek buildings, food courts, etc. It felt like a business, one dedicated to gaining more clients by building newer and greater attractions for them. In this way, colleges compete with each other and drive up tuition in the process. Whomever has the greatest attractions has the greatest customer base.
If the GOP could work on controlling the cost aspect, that might be a start – perhaps taxing Universities based upon their expenditures (or cost of attendance, tuition rate, etc.), with a higher rate for greater expenditure. If they were forced to skimp somewhere in order to pay the tax bill, then they might chose to eliminate building the new recreation center or food court, keeping tuition under control.
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
The high unemployment rates and low income of new graduates are the leading causes behind these survey results.
And fifty years of uncontrolled, excessive, legal and illegal immigration is the leading cause of the high unemployment and low income of new graduates.
Why on earth would they do that? You just elegantly stated how both parties benefit from this state of affairs.
All great f***ups are bipartisan, and this strikes me as one of those.
Personally I’d raise awareness about how ‘everyone goes to college’ just leaves everyone at the same place, but further in debt. It’s obvious even with an 85 IQ if you think about it–if everyone goes to college, but the same jobs have to be done…
I keep wondering which straw will break the back of the US economy. There are a number, and I don’t expect to survive another decade, but student loans are a definite contender. Obama is going to cap the amount a borrower is required to pay at 10 percent of income, and the maximum amount of time they will have to make payments on their debt will be 20 years. I heard a show on NPR today about this subject. A young woman called in who owes $250,00o in loans she took out to get a master’s degree in psychology. She doesn’t have a decent job and can pay back only a nominal amount, so the taxpayer will ultimately be responsible.
If the taxpayer is going to be responsible for debts of this kind, don’t we have the right to refuse loans to people who obviously aren’t going to be able to repay them? People getting degrees in areas where high-paying jobs are not available? It would make more sense to make colleges eat the losses of students who can’t pay back loans based on the market value of their degrees. They need to bear some of the moral hazard. That might put an end to all the race and gender studies departments.
Also, I really hate the way Obama keeps pushing college on everyone.
I coined the term “affordable family formation” a decade ago to suggest to Republican strategists a coherent plan for long term survival.
You’re assuming that the leaders of the Republican party actually care about the long-term survival of the Republican party. What if they don’t? What if they’re only interested in milking it for their own profit by catering to the globalist oligarchs and don’t give a damn about whether or not the GOP exists 50 years from now?
A genuine affordable family formation agenda is going to have to do something about the higher education bubble. Some of the indispensable line items are pushing back on credential creep aka diploma creep, repudiating the legal doctrine of disparate impact so that testing instead of expensive diplomas are the main filtering mechanisms for employment, repudiating Griggs vs Duke Power, (which the Supreme Court actually did, but the Civil Rights Act of 1990 reimplemented legislatively), making in-state tuition for public colleges and universities free of charge, (I understand that the University of California system didn’t even charge tuition for in-staters until some point in Reagan’s first term as Governor).
As long as there are more people applying for jobs than there are jobs, creeping credentialism will exist and the fight for places in the tier one schools and the good paying jobs will continue. There is no government policy that is going to create high paying, low work jobs for the middle class. There is no policy that will make international competition go away. And since there will be fewer good jobs, there will be fewer children born to the middle and upper middle classes. This is especially true for whites and Asians.
The idea that the government can affect these demographic trends is wrong. All the government can go is adopt policies now that limit the negative impacts of the trends.
Our plan to ensure that no Americans below the 1% (who by the way vote 99% Democrat) are able to earn any money whatsoever suffered a huge blow tonight with the defeat of Cantor.
No doubt the Republicans have only the country’s purest interests at heart, completely unlike the Nigerian oil kleptocrats or Russian oligarchs or every corrupt government ever.
Tariffs, quotas, made in America content, and massive 1960s NASA and military spending would benefit the stem friendly White middle class nicely. NAM spending would have to be slashed however. So yes it can be done. Make Apple manufacture their stuff here if the want to sell it here.
“Dew (2008) finds a negative correlation between reduced marital satisfaction and student loan debt, positing that increased stress related to consumer debt—including student loans—could diminish marital satisfaction.”
Isn’t reduced marital satisfaction the same as marital dissatisfaction?
So
shouldn’t it be a negative correlation between student loan debt & marital satisfaction (i.e. as debt goes up marital satisfaction goes down)
OR
a positive correlation between student loan debt and marital dissatisfaction (as debt goes up, marital dissatisfaction goes up.)
My first semester at college was in the Fall of 1982 at SUNY Farmingdale, a commuter school. My tuition for the semester was about $550, not including books. I paid for it out of the money I got paid the previous summer, working at a beach doing cleanup and maintenance for minimum wage.
The other impact of high tuition on family formation is that it discourages upper and middle class families from having more children. College tuition is the ultimate progressive tax.
Obama is going to cap the amount a borrower is required to pay at 10 percent of income, and the maximum amount of time they will have to make payments on their debt will be 20 years.
What? He’s not a dictator. How is he going to do this?
“If the GOP could work on controlling the cost aspect, that might be a start – perhaps taxing Universities based upon their expenditures (or cost of attendance, tuition rate, etc.), with a higher rate for greater expenditure. ”
Price controls would do the trick. The usual objection to price control is that it leads to undersupply, but since too many people are going to college already this would be a feature, not a bug.
Universities are largely controlled by liberals. It is best if they have as little excess money as possible, because that excess just gets funelled to leftist projects (women’s studies, diversity directors, etc.) Set tuition at a max of $10k a year, or whatever is just enough to cover instruction in core subjects.
“A young woman called in who owes $250,00o in loans she took out to get a master’s degree in psychology. She doesn’t have a decent job and can pay back only a nominal amount, so the taxpayer will ultimately be responsible.
If the taxpayer is going to be responsible for debts of this kind, don’t we have the right to refuse loans to people who obviously aren’t going to be able to repay them?”
Price controls would solve this problem too.
Just say that any college that wants to receive federal financial aid has to cap tuition for aid receiving students at $10k. They could still charge the rich whatever they want.
It would be a way of out-lefting the left, but in a way that advances conservative interests.
Not to mention it just seems immoral to burden young people with lots of debt.
But it’s also fundamentally wrong for the US, a sovereign nation with its own currency, ie it should be able to issue as much of said currency as it wants, to run deficits by issuing debt that also burdens future generations.
“Personally I’d raise awareness about how ‘everyone goes to college’ just leaves everyone at the same place, but further in debt. It’s obvious even with an 85 IQ if you think about it–if everyone goes to college, but the same jobs have to be done…”
What, what, what? The same jobs have to be done? But if everyone goes to college, everyone will use that rigorous education to become a future builder. And if everyone is a future builder, everyone will soon be employed in socially aware, social media-driven green energy enterprises that will help create an America that lives up to the promise of its founders.
We just need to get that last 40% of American youth in college for 5-8 years so they too can invest in their future. And of course it would help if we could get all those dreamers in Latin America into U.S. colleges so they too can build our future.
In my opinion the best way to do this is to load up every young American with more government-guaranteed debt, and figure out complex, bureaucratic ways for them to avoid ever having to pay it. This way everyone wins – the future is built, every young American (and Latin American) gets to go to college, no one is weighed down by debt they actually have to pay, banks make more money, bureaucrats are employed administering an increasingly byzantine and larger debt program, college campuses finally give students the level of comfort and luxury they deserve, and multitudes are employed educating marginal students in the same things they learned in high school, except at higher salaries and with opportunities to move into interesting positions such as diversity officer and campus feng shui advisor. You see everyone wins!
Wow, policies that further decimate the white middle class. What does that sound like? Oh yeah, every Democrat policy ever. Shouldn’t the core assumption here be that everything is going as planned?
“The current system is a machine for creating Democratic voters.”
Not quite. The banksters generally skew Republican. They are simply meeting the demands of consumers. They are taking the liberty to issue those loans; those who want them make their own decision.
There is no “immorality” here. Just simply good ol’fashioned American capitalism.
The system already was de-privatized for all new loans in 2010: “Following the passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 on March 26, 2010 the program was eliminated, and no subsequent loans were permitted to be made under the program after June 30, 2010.” (per Wikipedia)
People are mad about their student loans without knowing a lot about who they are supposed to be mad at. That’s good for Democrats.
[…] SAILER: College loans make family formation less affordable. “The current system is a machine for creating Democratic voters. But Republican politicians […]
AIDS is a little tattletale telling on those who've been naughty but who might want to keep it a secret.
Doing a search brings up a heck of a lot of such cases all over. Some of these people have reportedly had hundreds of contacts. One thing that seems to be the case is that most of them strike...
Bernie Goetz wasn't in the right time frame to be a pivotal figure. As I said, right now The Narrative is like communism was in 1989. In Bernie's day, The Narrative still had many people convinced it was worth giving a try, i.e it was more like communism in 1965. On the other hand, the New York s...
Any chance of the media, academics and leftist 'commentators' accepting responsibility for the anti-white racism they aggravated with their unhinged and false description of trump as a racist?
Didn't think so.
The current narrative and its defenders-promoters really are despicable.
LSAT yes, just because I found the questions fun ( I never read any of the methodologies for answering the questions as that would take away from the fun).
The others however are School mandated. Some ignored them but they were a tiny minority. Everyone else took them because our mothers would...
"Or, even if they["interracial cuckolds"] don’t necessarily have a pornographic interest in it they can’t help themselves but frame every racial problem in the United States in the form of black men getting sexual access to white women."
I think that's an exaggeration.
I would remind you, h...
Note that it does not state that it is confident that the Russian government directed the disclosures of the information or even supplied it to those sites.
As far as I can tell, the number of Africans in
Poland is minuscule. Under Communism a few
of them came to study in Poland, and several
perhaps intermarried with Polish women. Out
of one such relationship came a mixed-race weather
woman who was very visible on Polish TV for a couple
of dec...
"And apparently it’s the highest American value to support the Government of Russia over the Government of the US"
It is a traditional American value to not trust the American Government.
I've lived in the "black" and "African-American" span, plus whatever else they added since I stopped paying attention. (I think it went from black to African-American instead of the other way around, though it may have gone back and forth a couple times; I don't know. I don't want to nitpick.) I ...
The black police chief thought it was stupidity rather than being a racial hate crime and avoided agreeing that it might be as such. Wonder what it takes for something to be called a hate crime when the victim is white or at least non-black? The media couldn't ignore this video so they'll be busy...
Um, no. The Young Turks are hacks to the extreme, only rarely admitting they are wrong. Saargon has regular fun ripping their lies and double standards to shreds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkRXi00p8c
Is it because the perpetrators are simply too sordid to stand in for some larger point?
I think so. The 120 IQ, verbal-weighted pundit cannot conceive, does not want to conceive, of the complete lack of introspection and time preference which is the normal frame of mind for a feral homo sapiens....
The Young Turks nailing Dems for the false Russian hacks meme being a cover for Hillary doing a crappy job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_VqlWn5S3s
And Young Turks contributor Jimmy Dore on his own show trashing the Dems for pushing the fake Russian hacks story:
https://www.youtube.com/w...
The female equivalent of Eton would be arguable either Cheltenham Ladies College or Roedean in Brighton.
For a while - back when God was a boy - I dated an ex Roedean head girl, she was upper crust Ulster Protestant. In my last year at a minor English public school I attended a 6th form dance at...
Latin is more popular than ever, today, in High School/Boarding/Parochial/Magnet schools. Steve should do a topic of this. Two of my sons are fluent in Latin. Latin is sort of hot again, for the gamer/coder/math-oriented/robotics/history-interested guys and girls. Scottish Games, Renaissance...
This might be a factor in what's different about Japan with respect to remaining nationalistic and not trying to drown their citizens in new voters:
Population density (citizens per square mile)
873 - Japan
593 - Germany
85 - US
From List of countries by population density...
"Kylie, 'dual citizenship' simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen."
Yes, I managed to grasp that.
And as far as American citizenship is concerned, I'm unalterably opposed to it.
I came to NZ as a skilled migrant. I was required to have an HIV test. If you roll up with a sob story and tell them you're persecuted, being HIV positive doesn't seem to be a problem.
http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=36
At least he was deported.
The first time a White man knocks out his black would-be mugger and remains unapologetic about it, a sea change will sweep through our society. We just need an example to show us that we’re not victims anymore. Then The Narrative will be as dead as communism in 1989.
Bernhard Goetz?
I bet Bill O'Reilly will cover it tomorrow if he didn't tonight; he's not perfect, but he has the courage and tbe pull to cover stuff like this.
I also bet no other MSM outlet will.
iSteve: Perhaps on the Wrong Side of History, but on the right side of reality.
Email me at SteveSlr *at* aol*dot*com (make the obvious substitutions between the asterisks; you don’t have to capitalize an email address, I just included the capitals to make clear the logic — it’s my name without a space and without the vowels in “Sailer” that give so many people, especially irate commenters, trouble.)
iSteve Panhandling
Steve Sailer
I always appreciate my readers’ help, especially monetary. Here’s how you can help:
First: You can use PayPal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. PayPal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual.
Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617-0142
Third: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring “subscription” donations.) Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.
I’m using Coinbase as a sort of PayPal for Bitcoins.
The IRS has issued instructions regarding Bitcoins. I’m having Coinbase immediately turn all Bitcoins I receive into U.S. dollars and deposit them in my bank account. At the end of the year, Coinbase will presumably send me a 1099 form for filing my taxes.
Payments are not tax deductible.
Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.
Fifth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.
Sixth: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with PayPal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.
Steve Sailer
Seventh: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address(that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here’s the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: “You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps.” You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don’t need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone — the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google’s free Gmail email service. Here’s how to do it.
As it is now, colleges ramp up tuition on the belief that student loans will always cover it – that students can always take out more to pay for their splurging. In short, there is zero incentive for cost control. Due to this belief, the University that I attended looked more like a resort than a school, with new rec centers, dorm complexes that you could mistake for palaces, continual construction of ever more opulent facilities and Greek buildings, food courts, etc. It felt like a business, one dedicated to gaining more clients by building newer and greater attractions for them. In this way, colleges compete with each other and drive up tuition in the process. Whomever has the greatest attractions has the greatest customer base.
If the GOP could work on controlling the cost aspect, that might be a start – perhaps taxing Universities based upon their expenditures (or cost of attendance, tuition rate, etc.), with a higher rate for greater expenditure. If they were forced to skimp somewhere in order to pay the tax bill, then they might chose to eliminate building the new recreation center or food court, keeping tuition under control.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/college-loans-make-family-formation-less-affordable/#comment-578053
The high unemployment rates and low income of new graduates are the leading causes behind these survey results.
And fifty years of uncontrolled, excessive, legal and illegal immigration is the leading cause of the high unemployment and low income of new graduates.
Why on earth would they do that? You just elegantly stated how both parties benefit from this state of affairs.
All great f***ups are bipartisan, and this strikes me as one of those.
Personally I’d raise awareness about how ‘everyone goes to college’ just leaves everyone at the same place, but further in debt. It’s obvious even with an 85 IQ if you think about it–if everyone goes to college, but the same jobs have to be done…
I keep wondering which straw will break the back of the US economy. There are a number, and I don’t expect to survive another decade, but student loans are a definite contender. Obama is going to cap the amount a borrower is required to pay at 10 percent of income, and the maximum amount of time they will have to make payments on their debt will be 20 years. I heard a show on NPR today about this subject. A young woman called in who owes $250,00o in loans she took out to get a master’s degree in psychology. She doesn’t have a decent job and can pay back only a nominal amount, so the taxpayer will ultimately be responsible.
If the taxpayer is going to be responsible for debts of this kind, don’t we have the right to refuse loans to people who obviously aren’t going to be able to repay them? People getting degrees in areas where high-paying jobs are not available? It would make more sense to make colleges eat the losses of students who can’t pay back loans based on the market value of their degrees. They need to bear some of the moral hazard. That might put an end to all the race and gender studies departments.
Also, I really hate the way Obama keeps pushing college on everyone.
I coined the term “affordable family formation” a decade ago to suggest to Republican strategists a coherent plan for long term survival.
You’re assuming that the leaders of the Republican party actually care about the long-term survival of the Republican party. What if they don’t? What if they’re only interested in milking it for their own profit by catering to the globalist oligarchs and don’t give a damn about whether or not the GOP exists 50 years from now?
More affordable family formation Sailerbait:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/06/blue-state-policies.html
A genuine affordable family formation agenda is going to have to do something about the higher education bubble. Some of the indispensable line items are pushing back on credential creep aka diploma creep, repudiating the legal doctrine of disparate impact so that testing instead of expensive diplomas are the main filtering mechanisms for employment, repudiating Griggs vs Duke Power, (which the Supreme Court actually did, but the Civil Rights Act of 1990 reimplemented legislatively), making in-state tuition for public colleges and universities free of charge, (I understand that the University of California system didn’t even charge tuition for in-staters until some point in Reagan’s first term as Governor).
OT, but Cantor lost! This is the best thing that’s happened in a while.
As long as there are more people applying for jobs than there are jobs, creeping credentialism will exist and the fight for places in the tier one schools and the good paying jobs will continue. There is no government policy that is going to create high paying, low work jobs for the middle class. There is no policy that will make international competition go away. And since there will be fewer good jobs, there will be fewer children born to the middle and upper middle classes. This is especially true for whites and Asians.
The idea that the government can affect these demographic trends is wrong. All the government can go is adopt policies now that limit the negative impacts of the trends.
Our plan to ensure that no Americans below the 1% (who by the way vote 99% Democrat) are able to earn any money whatsoever suffered a huge blow tonight with the defeat of Cantor.
No doubt the Republicans have only the country’s purest interests at heart, completely unlike the Nigerian oil kleptocrats or Russian oligarchs or every corrupt government ever.
I wish I’d thought of it:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/05/affordable-family-formation-and.html
Tariffs, quotas, made in America content, and massive 1960s NASA and military spending would benefit the stem friendly White middle class nicely. NAM spending would have to be slashed however. So yes it can be done. Make Apple manufacture their stuff here if the want to sell it here.
“Dew (2008) finds a negative correlation between reduced marital satisfaction and student loan debt, positing that increased stress related to consumer debt—including student loans—could diminish marital satisfaction.”
Isn’t reduced marital satisfaction the same as marital dissatisfaction?
So
shouldn’t it be a negative correlation between student loan debt & marital satisfaction (i.e. as debt goes up marital satisfaction goes down)
OR
a positive correlation between student loan debt and marital dissatisfaction (as debt goes up, marital dissatisfaction goes up.)
My first semester at college was in the Fall of 1982 at SUNY Farmingdale, a commuter school. My tuition for the semester was about $550, not including books. I paid for it out of the money I got paid the previous summer, working at a beach doing cleanup and maintenance for minimum wage.
The other impact of high tuition on family formation is that it discourages upper and middle class families from having more children. College tuition is the ultimate progressive tax.
Obama is going to cap the amount a borrower is required to pay at 10 percent of income, and the maximum amount of time they will have to make payments on their debt will be 20 years.
What? He’s not a dictator. How is he going to do this?
Universities have monopoly pricing power on signalling, and that is only going to go away, as countenance posted, when disparate impact is gone.
“If the GOP could work on controlling the cost aspect, that might be a start – perhaps taxing Universities based upon their expenditures (or cost of attendance, tuition rate, etc.), with a higher rate for greater expenditure. ”
Price controls would do the trick. The usual objection to price control is that it leads to undersupply, but since too many people are going to college already this would be a feature, not a bug.
Universities are largely controlled by liberals. It is best if they have as little excess money as possible, because that excess just gets funelled to leftist projects (women’s studies, diversity directors, etc.) Set tuition at a max of $10k a year, or whatever is just enough to cover instruction in core subjects.
[…] Source: Steve Sailer […]
“A young woman called in who owes $250,00o in loans she took out to get a master’s degree in psychology. She doesn’t have a decent job and can pay back only a nominal amount, so the taxpayer will ultimately be responsible.
If the taxpayer is going to be responsible for debts of this kind, don’t we have the right to refuse loans to people who obviously aren’t going to be able to repay them?”
Price controls would solve this problem too.
Just say that any college that wants to receive federal financial aid has to cap tuition for aid receiving students at $10k. They could still charge the rich whatever they want.
It would be a way of out-lefting the left, but in a way that advances conservative interests.
Not to mention it just seems immoral to burden young people with lots of debt.
But it’s also fundamentally wrong for the US, a sovereign nation with its own currency, ie it should be able to issue as much of said currency as it wants, to run deficits by issuing debt that also burdens future generations.
But both are happening with abandon. Go figure.
What? He’s not a dictator. How is he going to do this?
Pretty much a done deal. See:
Student-Debt Forgiveness Plans Skyrocket, Raising Fears Over Costs, Higher Tuition
By Josh Mitchell
April 22, 2014
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303887804579503894256072308
“Personally I’d raise awareness about how ‘everyone goes to college’ just leaves everyone at the same place, but further in debt. It’s obvious even with an 85 IQ if you think about it–if everyone goes to college, but the same jobs have to be done…”
What, what, what? The same jobs have to be done? But if everyone goes to college, everyone will use that rigorous education to become a future builder. And if everyone is a future builder, everyone will soon be employed in socially aware, social media-driven green energy enterprises that will help create an America that lives up to the promise of its founders.
We just need to get that last 40% of American youth in college for 5-8 years so they too can invest in their future. And of course it would help if we could get all those dreamers in Latin America into U.S. colleges so they too can build our future.
In my opinion the best way to do this is to load up every young American with more government-guaranteed debt, and figure out complex, bureaucratic ways for them to avoid ever having to pay it. This way everyone wins – the future is built, every young American (and Latin American) gets to go to college, no one is weighed down by debt they actually have to pay, banks make more money, bureaucrats are employed administering an increasingly byzantine and larger debt program, college campuses finally give students the level of comfort and luxury they deserve, and multitudes are employed educating marginal students in the same things they learned in high school, except at higher salaries and with opportunities to move into interesting positions such as diversity officer and campus feng shui advisor. You see everyone wins!
Livin’ the Life of Julia.
Not so off topic:
http://family-studies.org/children-are-most-likely-to-live-with-two-parents-in-these-countries/
Wonder what the student loan debt in these countries is. Check out #2.
Wow, policies that further decimate the white middle class. What does that sound like? Oh yeah, every Democrat policy ever. Shouldn’t the core assumption here be that everything is going as planned?
“The current system is a machine for creating Democratic voters.”
Not quite. The banksters generally skew Republican. They are simply meeting the demands of consumers. They are taking the liberty to issue those loans; those who want them make their own decision.
There is no “immorality” here. Just simply good ol’fashioned American capitalism.
The system already was de-privatized for all new loans in 2010: “Following the passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 on March 26, 2010 the program was eliminated, and no subsequent loans were permitted to be made under the program after June 30, 2010.” (per Wikipedia)
People are mad about their student loans without knowing a lot about who they are supposed to be mad at. That’s good for Democrats.
[…] SAILER: College loans make family formation less affordable. “The current system is a machine for creating Democratic voters. But Republican politicians […]
No student loans to 18 year olds!
Not quite. The banksters generally skew Republican.
Sure they do.
Somewhat more off-topic, 538.com has a surprisingly fair assessment of Scalia’s dissent on Windsor:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/latest-same-sex-marriage-rulings-prove-that-scalia-was-right/
Of course, they are gloating that he was dissenting and are happy that SSM will be the law of the land due to this ghastly ruling.
I wonder why you don’t write more about the changes in family law in California, specifically this bill:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB274
It will have profound implications for family formation in the future, great downstream effects.
This is all very Heinleinian. In 100 years, Scalia will be elevated to the status of either the greatest devil ever, or a prophet.