Socialism bad/capitalism good is a conversation below my standards. Student debt is complicated. It's worth discussion. There are many facets that can be discussed. Loans may have enabled the price of education to increase, which may have led to more students needing to get loans for the same education. The fact that student debt is extremely difficult to erase, and almost never is by bankruptcy, may have caused lenders to give money when the risk of default was high. Liberal politicians may helped to create this problem in an effort to make college education more available. Warren's plan might not be the best approach, but the economic damage of the student debt might be greater than doing something to absolve it, so it might be worth considering in light of these factors. The argument against it above considers just one factor and would probably get Facebook some ad revenue. We don't get any ad revenue.
I agree with not touching the good/bad convo. As a public school educator, I exist in a system In which I am penalized for my effectiveness. I can identify with shortcomings of a socialistic system. For example, I happen to be able to connect well with the wayward middle schoolers, I’ve found success with good number of reluctant middle school math students. As a result,my middle school counselors direct increasingly challenging students to my schedule. My Strength in ability has been revealed. As a result, I am expected to then to provide more to with students that take a larger portion of my time and energy. I am expected to produce more and more with less This is our fundamental difficulty in public schools. There has to be another way to do this. I have yet to see a way out.
Dumping more work on the best worker happens in many environments. It is a perverse consequence, and in the short term it may seem wise to work below your capacity and not draw too much attention. I think the private sector provides better incentives, however, to recognize and compensate talent. Public salaries are often fixed to a scale, but private salaries are often raised based on performance. And when a high-performing but under-recognized employee like WanderingEng switches jobs, the losing company pays a price in lost revenue and market share, feedback that is less common in the public sector.
|Dumping more work on the best worker happens in many environments. It is a perverse consequence, and in the short term it may seem wise to work below your capacity and not draw too much attention. I think the private sector provides better incentives, however, to recognize and compensate talent. Public salaries are often fixed to a scale, but private salaries are often raised based on performance. And when a high-performing but under-recognized employee like WanderingEng switches jobs, the losing company pays a price in lost revenue and market share, feedback that is less common in the public sector. Agreed. I have been finding myself concentrating on doing the basics of my job really well, and cutting out the "above and beyond" actions (calling more parents after hours) and scaling back to conserve my resources, while at the same time keeping my eye open to sweeter deals elsewhere (as a grade 6-8 math teacher), my position is in demand. I currrently work in a wealthy county, Oakland County, Michigan. My school district recieves the second lowest per-pupil foundation allowance in the county. We are spread thin for resources and serve students that come from very low socio-economic status (school performance is a low priority in the lives of many). I won't be surprised to be offered an opportunity to jump ship and work in a more affluent school district in the remaining six plus years of my career. Public Education, where unlimited demands meets limited resources. Other than that, I really do enjoy what I do much of the time. The Upside, I work in a place in which I feel needed.
The student debt situation is caused by the 1-2 combo of the loans being federally guaranteed, thus incentivizing the banks to lend almost unlimited amounts, and the loans not being dischargeable during bankruptcy. If you change those two things the problem will go away.
FYI the Federal Family Education Loan Program that guaranteed commercial student loans was discontinued in 2010, and credit is now provided directly from the Department of Education. Student debt can be discharged in bankruptcy by proving "undue hardship" but apparently it is difficult to do so.
It was just a dumb joke about how it's all dog-eat-dog when it comes to getting what you want then all "IT'S NOT FAIR" when it comes to paying any cost for anything that not an explicit fee-for-good/service agreement. Tear it apart all you want...not something I'm willing to defend :)
Market advocates talk about competition a lot, but a dogfight isn't the best analogy. It's more of a competition for opportunities to cooperate. Costco makes you an offer, Amazon makes you an offer, you choose who you want to interact with. Many critics who savage Amazon also shop there, suggesting a bit of virtue signaling in their criticisms.
The Warren example isn't presented as a comprehensive discussion of student loan forgiveness, rather it is one of two brief examples of the main idea: the "socialist" political type rewards the behavior they deem bad. Philosophy Bro assumes a progressive politician would praise a student who worked through college and took no loans, or else worked hard after graduation to pay debt off. Yet these students do not get the reward offered to students who rely more on credit. The conclusion is clear: "The progressives don’t think that it’s bad to repay your debts. They would agree that the people who sacrificed to repay their debts were acting well. But the Warren progressives would still reward those who acted badly, at the expense of those who acted well." Perhaps in practice many beneficiaries also worked through college but still have debt. Perhaps many with no student debt came from rich families, and Warren is consistent in not wanting to reward them. But the proposal did not consider these factors; the amnesty was only restricted when the graduates had a very high income.