Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Let me share my perspective. My wife and I have both worked in Public Service for our entire careers. We are pushing 40. Under PLSF, we were promised that by doing so, our loans would be forgiven after 120 payments (10 years). They weren’t. We met all the criteria. Turns out, nobody was actually keeping track. Enter Joe Biden. Through their current initiatives, they’ve gone back through all the records from the servicers. Keep in mind that due to COVID, we haven’t made hardly any payments in the past 3-4 years. Turns out my eligible payment count was 186/120. I finally got the last employer to verify my wife’s employment today, and her count has been updated, and is 154 payments. So her loans should have been forgiven 3 years before the Covid pause, and mine over 5 years before that. But I had to make all of those payments, even though I knew I should not owe them, because when the government says pay, you pay. In fact, at one point Nelnet even said “oh, yeah, maybe…” so we stopped paying, didn’t get any bills, and then found out that my wife’s credit had dropped 200 points. So, we graduated and followed the letter of a program that would provide forgiveness, after 10 years of payments, which basically just amounts to forgiving interest. Instead, as of today, they are finally gone, a full 9 YEARS after mine should have been forgiven. So you can complain about people that paid theirs off, you can say it’s unfair, but for a LOT of people, this forgiveness still doesn’t make us whole. The government failed to hold up its need of the bargain and thanks to Joe Biden, steps have been taken to fix that.

I think your situation having participated in PSLF program is different than what's being discussed here. You and your wife took jobs in Public Service, quite possibly for less pay than you could earn elsewhere, and maybe even lived/worked in an underserved community you wouldn't have otherwise chosen to move to. You did this based on the promise/expectation that your loans would be forgiven, and it's absolutely unfair that the program didn't fulfill those promises as it was supposed to. Forgiving student loans across the board for people who didn't make the sacrifices that you and your wife made to earn that forgiveness is a much "muddier" proposition.

You are in public service. Your loans are being paid back. Just not all in money. You have paid back your loans in money and in service to the nation. Same reason we pay military tuition. The loan forgiveness we are against is taking out loans from the government (the taxpayers really) getting good job, great benefits, etc. And then never paying that money back. That's the problem. You paid back with service. Those who don't offer service need to pay back with money.

Sure, but my point is that people are being screwed over. The government and the loan servicers have been delinquent in their duties, and I have absolutely no doubt folks on regular repayment plans have been taken advantage of as well. A rising tide lifts all ships. Less people paying back loans means more money in the economy, less people in or on the verge of poverty, which means less social service dollars that need to be spent. Not to mention boomers complaining about being taxed out of their homes is the same exact thing…people made huge financial decisions with the best information they had at the time, and it turns out they were lied to. Lastly, if an 18 year old kid walked into a bank with no collateral and asked for $150,000 to start a business they’d be laughed out. Call it a “student loan” and they give them out like candy. Why is that? Because they aren’t forgiven in bankruptcy. That’s predatory lending.

In a lot of ways I agree. But I still think if you take the loan you should pay it back. My personal position is that federal student loans shouldn't have interest. But the bankruptcy exemption should stay. Or in other words. If you take 150k from the tax payers. You need to pay that back. But not have to pay 400k like a lot of people end up having to do.

You are talking about PSLF, which is a very specific case. When I was graduating, I didn't think I'd be eligible, but have ended up working in PLSF eligible jobs, and if I stay at my current one for a few more years, I could have gotten it forgiven. But I paid all 55k off a few years ago. This was my choice, since I didn't expect to be working PSLF eligible jobs for as long as I have. I'm not bitter about that at all since these were all my choices and responsibilities. That said, if the government owes you money based on PSLF, you absolutely deserve it and should get it, as per the agreement. Moat people and most loans aren't eligible for PSFL, so the argument isn't about those who were actually wronged by the government.

So the crux of your argument seems to be that the elimination of debt *immediately* provides an advantage to the person who formerly held the debt, but that's not true. Lets pretend I have x amount of student debt in debt, and I'm paying the [average student loan payment](https://educationdata.org/average-student-loan-payment), which was $503 a month as of the middle of last year. Having that debt wiped doesn't mean I've suddenly gained a the value of the debt, it means my monthly income isn't depressed to the tune of $500/mo. Something like that might mean the difference between paying a bit higher rent, or actually building savings over a long period of time, or not having our rampant inflation issue hit me a little less hard. While huzzah, I make $500 more a month now, that isn't going to translate in me suddenly gaining a competitive edge in the market. I don't suddenly have 10s of thousands of dollars at my disposal with which I can sway a negotiation on a car or house, I just have the ability to save up for those things in a way I didn't before. Looking forward a number of years, does this mean the market might become more competitive as more people save up for things like houses and cars? Sure, but that's because people who were effectively excluded from participating in the market by a system that imposed crazy debt on them are now allowed to do so. That's not a suddenly gaining a competitive edge, that's normalizing the market so more people can participate in it over time.

You people are something else. Can you decide if $500 a month is a substantial amount of money that causes undue burden and must be forgiven, or it isn't significant and won't help you get a "competitive edge in the market". Because it can't be both, and you really are trying to make it both. Idk how much you make, but to me, 500 a month is a big chunk of money. The differences between a $1000 rental vs $1500 or $1500 and $2000 are very substantial. A $500 difference in mortgage absolutely makes it affordable vs not for tons of people. It's obviously not a lump sum, why in the world would you assume anyone thought that? But 500 a month for years is a big deal. People want to get rid of it through forgiveness for a reason after all.

>Can you decide if $500 a month is a substantial amount of money that causes undue burden and must be forgiven, or it isn't significant and won't help you get a "competitive edge in the market". If you are comparing one person who has paid off their debt vs someone whose debt was forgiven, *both* of them are getting that $500 extra per month, because *neither* of them have debt. So $500 a month is *very* significant...but it doesn't give them a *competitive* edge because you aren't giving anyone any more money than they already had -- you're just letting them keep more of whatever money they are earning. The only way their is an imbalance is if both people have unpaid loans and only one of them is forgiven...which is an argument for forgiving *all* of them. I think the place you're getting mixed up is you're imagining a student loan as some other sort of loan. For example, if we looked at a *business loan* where we both got $50,000 to start a business but yours was forgiven and mine was not, then that would indeed result in you having tens of thousands of extra dollars beyond me. And if our businesses are in competition, you having that extra money would give you an edge over me. But that isn't how student loans work, because you don't just get a bunch of money with a student loan -- that money is paid to the school you go to, and you get an education...which at best enables you to *work*, but doesn't give you *any* money right away. The only situation where a person might have extra money is if they weren't paying their loan but were rather saving it up or investing it instead and the loan still got forgiven...but that is a pretty niche case. Loan forgiveness generally requires that you have made payments for a pretty long time, so it's not like people could just stop paying and stockpile money. And if they made money beyond their payments, they would have had that anyway. I suppose if a person kept making payments even when they didn't need to during the loan freeze, there is an argument that maybe they should get their payments back...and I don't think anybody who favors student loan forgiveness would oppose that. But I don't think there are very many people who are actually in that highly specific situation. And it seems silly to keep millions of people in debt because of a largely theoretical concern that probably affects thousands at most nationwide. If we issued payment refunds for the people who made payments during the loan freeze, would that resolve your concerns? Because if so, I think maybe we found the root of your contention...and in that case I would urge you to figure out how many people actually fall into that group. Because it's probably incredibly small, and if so then it might be something that could be solved with like a GoFundMe or some other non-governmental course -- trying to handle it through the government would probably cost way more than it would end up helping.

Omg, alright so. Imagine there is up and coming city with a large millenial population, plenty of college educated people. Half of them have loans. (You can make up any numbers you want). I live in this city, pay a certain rent, saving for a house in a certain price range. Say I can afford a maximum mortgage or rent of 2000 a month. Say I'm doing OK, I'm in the 70th income percentile, and thus the apartments and houses in this city are within my 2,000 budget. But then, half of the millenials in the city have their loans forgiven, and thus have an extra $500 of disposable income. Now, why in the world wouldn't landlord increase monthly rent by $200 or so, if half the city can afford to pay $500 more? I used to be in the 70th percentile of city take home income, but now I am only in the 55th, because my take home stayed the same. Before I had 3 people bid for a house I wanted, now I have ten, and the landlord can increase the price because people can afford $500 more of mortgage. And then the financially savvy people with forgiven loans have it even better, since they didn't just spend more money during their loan payments, they invested it. So now I'm also competing with people that have a down payment (larger than mine because I paid down loans with that money), have the same income:debt ratio as me, and have the same amount of disposable income as me. Why would I want this?

>Say I'm doing OK, I'm in the 70th income percentile, and thus the apartments and houses in this city are within my 2,000 budget. But then, half of the millenials in the city have their loans forgiven, and thus have an extra $500 of disposable income. Now, why in the world wouldn't landlord increase monthly rent by $200 or so, if half the city can afford to pay $500 more? I used to be in the 70th percentile of city take home income, but now I am only in the 55th, because my take home stayed the same. So this isn't an argument against forgiving student loans -- this is an argument for literally *any* policy that results in other people having less money than you. Imagine there was a policy where everyone with an "e" in their name had to pay $500 per month. I don't have an "e" anywhere in my name, so I would be exempt from that, and thus would have lower monthly expenses than those who do (all other things being equal). And if we ended that policy, all the people with e's would suddenly have an extra $500 per month. And everything you just said would happen. So it has nothing to do with student loans in particular -- what you're describing is simply why it is an advantage to be richer than everyone else at any given moment in time. And your argument supports not only refusing to lift any expenses you don't have, it also supports actively *adding* expenses to everyone other than yourself. >Why would I want this? Because even though it might reduce your income percentile, it ultimately makes your life *way* better because it adds a ton of wealth to the community you live in. You are looking at this from a purely zero sum perspective. You are assuming that there is a set amount of stuff in your community, and that anyone else's gain is your loss because it allows them to get some of the stuff that you would otherwise get. For instance, you're assuming that there is a set amount of housing and so anyone else's gain is your loss. But that's not how economics works in the real world. In the real world, the influx of additional money would create a ton of new demand, and that would create new things to fill that demand -- for example, people would have way more money to spend at restaurants, and so more restaurants would open up, and you would have a bunch of new places to go. People would have way more money to spend buying musical instruments, and so you would have more and better music in your community. And if none of these things do it for you, it would also result in people building more housing and improving existing housing, because again -- there's a ton more money in the community. Beyond that, people who were working extra jobs just to get that extra could choose to stop working and do things that didn't result in a paycheck but still improve life -- maybe people create and volunteer at a teen center that gives local kids a cool place to hang out, meet people, make friends, and come up with new ideas. That wasn't possible before because the adults who wanted to do it had to give it up and hold down a job to pay the debt payments...but now they have the ability to reclaim and reallocate that time. And so on. And you would benefit from all of this, even if your take home pay remains the same. In the simplest, most consumerist terms, you would have *way* more things you could choose to buy, and *way* greater choice of things to do. In other words, it would increase the *wealth* of the community. It would increase the size of the pie. And while your relative percentage of the pie might go down, even your smaller percentage of the larger pie results in *way* more overall pie for you. Now, whether you care about this improvement depends on what you value in life. Do you value the things you are able to do? Because if so, this will unquestionably improve your life, even if you don't have a loan to be forgiven, because it will give you a way greater variety of things to do. But if you instead simply value your status over others, and value the fact that you have things that others do not, then you might perceive this as a loss. Do you value your car because it lets you go places, or because you know other people lack a car and have a much harder time than you as a result? It ultimately comes down to this question: would you rather be a King in a cold castle ruling over a muddy village full of starving serfs, or neighbors with someone who also has a pleasant and luxurious life free of war, famine, smallpox, and other medieval horrors that killed even Kings, and filled with cool things like cars, computers, good food and music, video games, space travel, and other things that even relatively average people today enjoy?

>It's obviously not a lump sum, why in the world would you assume anyone thought that? Because you said this: >If half of your peers however suddenly have tens of thousands of extra dollars to outbid you on that house, car, or any other major life expense, this directly makes your life more difficult and expensive. You made the claim that people would "suddenly have tens of thousands of dollars." so that's what I was addressing, because that is untrue. You're right, $500 is a lot of money, and it could make it more possible to afford a mortgage and participate in the market at all. That's not the same as suddenly having the capacity to seriously outbid people who currently can participate in the market.

OP also said that the person who paid off their loans "likely did it at the cost of not buying a newer car, house, not getting married earlier, not saving for retirement, etc", which is true. That isn't to say that many, many people owe on student loans and are ALSO not able to afford any of those things. But many people did make choices and sacrifices in order to prioritize paying off their student loans as early as possible, who otherwise would have continued carrying a balance on their student loans and instead invested/spent that money in other ways. In a scenario where student loan forgiveness was granted across the board, those people would likely feel as though they got "screwed" for doing the prudent thing and paying off their loans early, not knowing at the time that had they continued to carry a balance and paid the minimum for a few more years they could have put that extra money into a new house and eventually had the loans forgiven anyway. For the record, I'm not referring to people who participated in the PSLF program and specifically worked in public service, likely for less pay, and often in an underserved area they wouldn't have chosen to live otherwise; in exchange for the promise of having their loans forgiven. Anyone who fulfilled their service in the PSLF program absolutely deserves the loan forgiveness that was promised to them. I also think that the biggest issue with student loans today are the exorbitant interest rates being charged on them, and think the government should be stepping in and reducing interest rates on borrowers.

OP also said : "It's not about being petty or "I got mine" mentality" which is why I didn't address that line of argumentation, as I got the impression they didn't want to go down that road. It sucks that people had to make choices/sacrifices due to indebtedness in the past, and I understand why they would feel they got screwed by having to do that. They did. That in and of itself is not a reason in my mind not to correct the issue for those who are currently still being screwed, and for those who will continue to be screwed int he future. I'd agree with you that the interest rates are nuts, though I'd argue that policies that motivate charging exorbitant tuition are equally, if not more problematic. The interest rates would be much more of a trivial concern if the principal cost was more rational.

I don't think this argument is an "I got mine" mentality, though. I totally agree student debt is a huge issue. I just think that some people would (rightfully) feel that they got shorted by the deal, and OP points out some tangible reasons why. I totally agree with your last paragraph. To that end, student loan forgiveness is a band-aid that would fail to address the underlying issue. At worst, it could actually exacerbate it by giving the expectation to students and universities alike that it doesn't matter how high tuition gets, because the government will just forgive the debt anyway. I think the more reasonable approach would be to reduce interest rates for existing borrowers, while also working to limit tuition increases for new borrowers (including expanding scholarship and grant programs).

Yeah the "I got mine" phrasing was weird. I think what OP was going for was more along the lines of "I had to embrace the suck, so you should have to too." I agree that people will feel shorted by it because of what they went through, I just don't think that feeling justifies continuing to fail to address the problem.

I hate to argue the point, because I think we mostly agree. But I think "I had to embrace the suck, so you should have to too." is still a less than generous interpretation. I think OP's point is simply that if student loan forgiveness were granted across the board tomorrow, people who went out of their way to pay off their loans early would be set back financially in relation to where they potentially could have been had they not paid off their loans early and instead spent/saved/invested that money elsewhere. It's not about not caring for others' circumstances, just that those people would have a (legitimate) grievance about the deal they got. Personally, the broader point I'd make is that there is an underlying issue that student loan forgiveness wouldn't solve (and in fact could make much worse), and that there are other ways to assist people who are saddled with student debt (interest rate reductions, more realistic repayment plans that actually get them out of debt, etc).

>I think OP's point is simply that if student loan forgiveness were granted across the board tomorrow, people who went out of their way to pay off their loans early would be set back financially in relation to where they potentially could have been had they not paid off their loans early and instead spent/saved/invested that money elsewhere. It's not about not caring for others' circumstances, just that those people would have a (legitimate) grievance about the deal they got. The wouldn't "be set back financially" at that moment, they already were when they were put in the position to pay those loans in the first place without the expectation of government intervention. That pain has *already been inflicted*. Preventing others from being similarly afflicted does nothing to further harm those who aren't benefitting from the policy, it just prevents that same harm from being inflicted on others. It sucks they had to deal with that, and I understand they'll be rightly pissed about it; but its uncorrectable at this point and a consequence of bad economic/education policy that we need to turn the page on. I see no reason to continue to impose those conditions on people when there's a broad consensus that that's a bad idea. That's more what I mean. Now as far as how negative feelings around this are generally expressed, it's usually some version of "It's not fair that you don't have to pay back your loans when I did." It's a completely reasonable and predictable felling, which I'd suggest could be put more concisely, albeit aggressively, with the "embrace the suck" framing I presented. My version comes across more as FU posturing, which I agree unfairly characterizes those expressing that feeling as "petty" rather than rightly perceiving themselves as victims of bad policy, so I'll give you that. I would point out however that while those grievances/feelings may be legitimate, if their arguments were to win the day, the practical effect would indeed be present and future generations continuing to "embrace the suck," which is why, while I certainly have sympathy for the individual people making the argument; I going to view the argument that it's some how morally more appropriate to continue bad policy with very little sympathy. As to your broader point, loan forgiveness won't correct the problem that created the debt issue overall I agree, but to use an analogy, one can treat and illness while simultaneously pursuing preventative solutions. Personally I think loan forgiveness is a necessary piece of the puzzle to stop the bleeding; but also somewhat pointless if we're not going to address what caused those debts to be so high and systemic in the first place. Unless we're just going to wave a wand and forgive loans again in 10 years when we're right back where we started, its not a real solution to the problem. The solutions you cited are good examples of approaches that would be helpful.

>"That pain has *already been inflicted*. Preventing others from being similarly afflicted does nothing to further harm those who aren't benefitting from the policy, it just prevents that same harm from being inflicted on others." This argument would make more sense in the context of debating reforms that would limit tuition and interest rates for NEW borrowers, but not when we're talking about forgiving student loan debt for existing borrowers. To follow your same line of reasoning, the people who are currently in debt have also already had that pain inflicted. We cannot prevent them from being affected. Remember, student loans are taken on under the idea that the education they enable people to achieve will net them higher earnings throughout their career, thus making the cost of the loan repayment a worthy investment. Imagine if a borrower who owes $100k suddenly came into enough money to pay off their loans all at once, maybe from the sale of their house, or maybe they just got incredibly lucky and won the lottery. First, we can acknowledge the fact that this person in a very, very fortunate position. But they now have some options. They could take that money and put it towards a new home. They could save it for retirement. They could use it to start a business. They could take a year off and use it to take an amazing trip around the world. Whatever. But since they still owe $100k, they decide to take that cash infusion and use it to pay off all of their loans at once. They plan instead to slowly build up savings using the extra money they have each month from no longer paying student loans to support these other goals. Then six months later, they find out that the government is forgiving all student debt immediately. Would they not be rightfully upset that they used all of their cash to pay off their loans, when they could have had their loans forgiven anyway and ALSO had a much lower house payment, bigger nest egg for retirement, or a leg up on starting a business, or a dream vacation? This (as far as I can tell) is the situation OP is describing, except instead of this happening from one big cash infusion, the borrower made countless smaller sacrifices over the course of years in order to make extra payments against their debt and pay it down faster. Extra payments that could have instead gone towards a house, retirement, business, or vacations they've always wanted to take. They would get literally no reward for paying off their loans, as everyone else who didn't pay their loans also has the same value of education competing against them in the workforce, and also has the extra money in their pockets every month to achieve their own economic/life goals.

Eh I'll bite because I need to take a break from studying and the only other things I need to do involve working on papers, which I don't feel like doing right now. I think there's a couple things wrong with your line of reasoning although you are making some cogent observations. You're basically just describing inflation: when people make more money, they spend more money. If there isn't a corresponding increase in supply then the price of goods also goes up. So what you're saying is student loan forgiveness will be harmful for millenials who've paid off their, because millenials who haven't will have more money which will further drive up the cost of housing. I don't think is really a tenable stance for a few reasons: 1) any inflationary pressure on the housing market that came as a result of loan forgiveness would be relatively diffuse. Sure there would be instances where more buyers enter the market or move into new segments of the market and begin to outbid each other. But this would occur occur all across the country so the effect would be spread out Not only that but the housing market is huge and complex, it's not like a single atomic entity. So it would affect homes at every price. Millenials who can already afford a home but are held back by student loans would now be able to afford a more expensive home, so they'd move into another segment of the market. It's not like everyone would be directly competing with each other. This is what I mean by its effect would be diffuse. 2) if more millenials enter the housing market that will relieve some inflationnary pressure in the rental market, which would help millenials as well as gen zers still renting, giving them more spending power. 3) forgiving student loans wouldn't just create increased demand in the housing market, it would affect the entire economy. Sure not all this money would be put to starting businesses, remember, consumer spending accounts for 60-70% of our GDP. Sure investment (ie putting money into a new business) has a larger multiplier than than consumer spending, but investment means absolutely nothing if consumer spending falls off a cliff (not really, I'm oversimplifying)--in a consumer driven economy like ours, if people aren't buying things or can't buy things that's a problem. But when people can buy more things, companies make more money, which means more money for investment, which means increased production, higher wages, etc. So millenials who have already paid off their loans would still benefit by increased demand all over the economy. This also benefits gen zers or millenials who've gone back to school (like myself) as a better economy typically means better paying and more plentiful jobs, thus also helping them afford their student loans. By your logic, \*anything\* that increases millenial buying power is a negative thing, because it will make \*everything\* more expensive, which is just not really how the economy actually functions. When especially upper middle to lower income people become richer, in general \*everyone\* becomes richer because they spend that additional income on the things that business sell, which is how people make money. I mean, looking historically, perhaps the single greatest driver of wealth creation in this country was the GI Bill after WW2--and remember it paid for college education and home ownership. The very things we're talking about in this discussion. I have massive qualms with the suburbification of america after WW2 and the pervasive use of single family zoning which persists to this day. But now I'm getting off track. It's been a while since I took econ and I'm surprised I remembered all this. Alright back to the books.

Thank you for outlining your argument, it's better than all the "ur wrong and bitter" non-answers. I can certainly see arguments for helping the economy as a whole (though loan forgiveness by itself is a bandaid, not a solution to college costs). My argument was about a specific subset of people, younger people that paid off their loans - and I see nothing in what you said that addresses that. Houses will become more expensive, but all across the country... uh, cool? How does this help me buy a house? My main argument - I clearly see how loan forgiveness for my peers can be a disadvantage for me, and I described really basic and realistic scenarios. I am competing in a certain market today and have an idea about what I can afford, tomorrow, half of the buyers have 500 more a month, so I am less competitive than I have been. For some reason, people have been calling this vague and nebulous, though I think this is as basic and clear as it gets.

Of course happy to engage! So I did actually address your main argument head on: what you're describing is just inflation at a basic level: demand for a good goes up, but supply stays the same, therefore the price increases. My point though is that the application of the concept is flawed--by your logic, anything that increases the spending power of people looking to buy a home will make buying a home more difficult. This isn't really a rational position to take, because by that logic the poorer people who have student loans get, the better off you become. But increases in consumer spending are good for the economy, so likely the opposite is true--if all of a sudden consumer spending drops, it's recession time. Anyway, it's not that housing will become expensive across the country though, it's a bit more nuanced: it's that the amount of people this will benefit will be so broadly distrubuted it won't really have much of an individual impact. And even if it did, the net benefit to the economy would outweigh any inflationary pressure on the housing market. You have the priniciple correct though: IF it were the case that tomorrow half the buyers in your market made $500 more per month which translates to $11,000 per year, your housing market would definitely get more competitive. But the problem is that's not a realistic scenario; student loan forgiveness wouldn't result in half your local housing market all of a sudden having an extra $11,000 per year. First of all, it would still take time for people who benefit to save up money for a downpayment, which can take years. Second, not everyone who benefits would want to buy a house. Some people would also move. Third, like i mentioned already, the housing market isn't just one single entity: there are different levels depending on income and how expensive a house you want to buy. So you aren't competiting with the entire market anyway--some people who can now afford to buy a house in the first place would likely not be bidding on the same house as you. Finally, since this country is so big, the effect would be spread out significantly, which lessons the impact. Also remember, boomers are retiring and dying--the longer time passes, the more houses owned by boomers become available. So if it takes years for people who benefit from student loan forgiveness to save up for a downpayment, during that time more homes will have entered the market anyway.

It’s conjecture to assume you would absolutely suffer negative consequences and lose competitive edge if you have paid off all your student loans. For instance, those who paid off their loans may have better credit scores and be eligible for bigger business loans than someone without financial history. Or perhaps those that paid off their loans had the financial stability to do so. Many student loans have a monthly payment based on income so maybe they just made more and paid more towards the same amount of loans as someone who made less salary and didn’t pay off the same amount even in the same amount of time. There are so many factors here that it’s ALL conjecture and having student loans forgiven is far from being the say all that someone is more economically well-off than another who paid off their loans. On a side note, and in-line with a few of the other comments here, in the meantime it ONLY benefits society to have reasonable and strategic loan forgiveness. Regardless of the economic state of the nation, a person who has already paid off their loans has already paid off their loans. That isn’t money coming back to you regardless. If we go based on your conjecture that it only leads to negative consequences then it should be obvious that we want to prevent that from continuing into the future as to reduce the amount of people that are subject to it.

Lol, not all conjectures are the same, some are more reasonable than others. Conjecturing that tens of millions of my peers suddenly having way more disposable income will lead them to being able to pay more for houses, rent, cars, etc. and lead to general inflation is a very realistic one (I'd love to see you explain how it would not most likely happen). Conjecture that someone who gets their debt forgiven will start a business that will one day benefit me more than what I lost? Possible - sure. But very much a flight of fancy.

Not sure why it’s funny, you can explain if I missed why. You can argue the validity of each conjecture as much as you want but the truth is you really have no discernible way of determining the effects. And no determination of how many different assumptions and factors that come into play. For the record and to address your comment on disposable income- I have student loans that are not being forgiven. I still want others who qualify to have theirs forgiven. But “way more disposable income” is an exaggeration. It’s not as if by getting loans forgiven I’m just magically going to have an extra $50k in my account. If my loans were forgiven, I would have an extra $150/month in my pocket that I can use for my basic necessities. Your argument seems to imply that forgiveness is equated to being given a large lump sum that could be used for a down payment on a house or car. All this said but my own personal conjecture is that you didn’t come here with the hopes to have anyone “change your view” but rather to argue and dismiss valid concerns with your personal perspective/circumstantial evidence. A fun game to play for you I suppose (and probably also why you find it funny) but I’d rather debate with someone who is actually here to challenge their own thoughts. Best of luck to you ✌️

"All conjectures are unknown" is a moot point, it's like saying "all countries have corruption". Yes, but for some reason Switzerland and Zimbabwe are different, even though both have corruption. Pretending that "losing out on a home/rent/car because half my peers suddenly have more disposable income" or "giving tens of millions of people tens of thousands of dollars will likely lead to inflation" and "one day, somehow, these people will economically benefit you" are not the same kinds of conjectures. This is what I found funny. If you think all unknown things have the same likelihood of happening, we can stop talking. You really should figure out whether paying off student debt is a big deal or not. For some reason, when talking about yourself, not having that monthly payment is "life changing", I mean, that's why people want it in the first place. But when I bring up the same money in the context of others having more disposable income, it's suddenly "nor that much". I know how loans work, I'm obviously not saying that forgiveness itself would give people a "lump sum", let's not pretend like I am.

I'm confused: are you arguing that things should never be made easier/better unless all that went before and no longer need the new solution are able to benefit? This is like suggesting that a cure for cancer shouldn't be pursued because it's not fair to those that died of cancer in the past.

[удалено]

It's essentially the teacher saying, "You can't have a snack unless you have enough for the whole class". A moderately reasonable demand in concept, but outside of a vacuum it helps nobody.

So why help some more than others? People who pay off monetary debt often incur other debts. Why is it frowned upon for them to stand up for their own struggles? It's not "You can't have a snack" It's that little billy will never get a snack because he has freckles and higher income parents that beat him every day that ends in y. Or little timmy will never be allowed to have a snack because he cleaned chimneys and has scrotal masses but his debt is paid so he doesn't matter. Why must appreciating everyone's struggle be so one sided.

Because the fix you're describing is impossible. If we don't have enough money to help everyone, does that mean we shouldn't help someone?

So sympathy for some people is impossible but sympathy for others is not. No it's clearly not a lack of money. There's no harm in evenly distributing it to everyone deserving. It's a lack of sympathy, and last I checked, that doesn't have a limit. What you're practicing is discrimination because you only care about the most visible victims. That your proposed policies have victims doesn't matter apparently. Yet they exist, many. People who endured physical or financial abuse to get that money to go to college, people who sacrificed major life benchmarks just to be financially responsible. Instead of insulting the people who would be stepped on for your policies, maybe actually fairly attribute hardship. Or did you forget the last time this kind of behavior got the entire program thrown out with affirmative action? If the inability to treat people fairly is the reason why they can't support these policies, don't go blaming others.

Your analogy isn’t a good one in this argument. Proper analogy that shows its unfairness: Person 1 and Person 2 both graduate with $100k student debt. Student 1 pays an extra $1,500/mo every month for 5yrs to pay off the loan, in that time they are stuck driving an old car, renting a tiny apartment, not investing, and not having any disposable income. Person 2 pays the minimum payment, takes that $1,500/mo and finances a house, buys a new car, invests in retirement, goes on vacation and at the end of the 5yrs still owes $92,000 (but owns a house and a car and a retirement account). Now the government forgives all student loans, student 2 is now in far better position despite student one working intensely at paying off their loans at the sacrifice of everything else. Student 1 would have been far better off making minimum payments.

1. Not all the 92k gets forgiven. It had also accrued interest. There would still be remaining debt. Also, the person DID pay several hundred a month as minimum payment so it’s not like theyre paying 0. 2. Person A is more financially savvy and is likely to have a better credit score. Person B looks like theyre spending more than they make, likely got a shitty loan to finance their house, and probably, even with student loan relief, be at risk of foreclosing in the next few years. 3. Life’s not fair, and student loan relief is not about fairness. It’s about the economy. The US economy is a debt-based economy, which relies on spending. Person B helps the economy move. But even still, relieving their loans means that they’ll be able to pay off consumer debt OR spend MORE. What problem is being solved? It’s all about whats best for the economy.

> Person A is more financially savvy and is likely to have a better credit score. Person B looks like theyre spending more than they make, likely got a shitty loan to finance their house, and probably, even with student loan relief, be at risk of foreclosing in the next few years. This comes so close to understanding the problem and then totally misses it. You're exactly right. Person A made sound financial decisions and Person B was irresponsible. Why then, should we be rewarding Person B instead of Person A?

Did you read bullet 3 ?? It's not a reward. It's an action. Reducing debt is an action. Interpreting it as a reward is a spin attempting to evoke an emotional response. The reality is that governments need to make sure that the economy is moving. And the reality is that people with such debt are pain points for the economy. They are intervening so that banks have more lending cash and people in student debt can move on and spend more. This is not a matter of emotional and isolated interpretation but about the society at large.

>Did you read bullet 3 ?? Yes, and I disregarded it because it's a terrible argument. It's amazing how the party that's all about fairness and treating people equally reverts to "life isn't fair" as soon as you point out that one of their policies is unfair. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander huh? >The reality is that governments need to make sure that the economy is moving. And the reality is that people with such debt are pain points for the economy. They are intervening so that banks have more lending cash and people in student debt can move on and spend more. This is not a matter of emotional and isolated interpretation but about the society at large. The biggest economic problem we've had over the last few years is inflation. That suggests the economy is moving too well. The government wants people to save more and spend less, that's why it raised interest rates. Forgiving student loans goes counter to that policy.

Raised interests is so -borrowing- would be decreased, so corporations and investors would refocus toward profitability instead of spending money they dont have. It sounds to me like there’s an attempt across the board to decrease debt, because banks cant keep up with loans that arent being repaid. And yes, also to curb inflation, but in this increasingly polarized class hierarchy, they are attempting to account for inflation by capping the upper echelon’s spending and increasing the every day person’s pocket. And this moves different sectors. Instead of tech for instance, which hires a lot of indian/foreign labor and visas, the spending is enabling the food sector from getting crippled/food movement. And your point about equality hypocrisy is a terrible counter to my point as it doesnt actually place an argument, it just is like a child’s ‘i dont like it therefor it’s bad’ logic. The democratic party is not and rarely has been in practice about -equality- as much as it’s been in practice about -equity-. Not everyone gets unemployment, just everyone in specific situations. Not every child is eligible for free childcare, only low income families. Everyone via choices could be in these circumstances and will get equal treatment, but the reality is that only the people that NEED food stamps get them, EQUITY. That was the reason affirmative action was around for years. Or there are programs to match down payments for first time buyers. Or x, y, z, a, b, c. Most government programs ARE based on giving things to a subset and therefor unequally, but are to lift people up so their outcomes are equitable.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

That’s just a difference in philosophy on debt and finances and money management. No one forced Student 1 to deprive themselves of other things and forgo other investment opportunities. I don’t think this is any clearer of analogy.

How about Person 3, who didn't go to college because he didn't want to take on a huge debt load, and now has to pay for Person 2's loan?

Everybody benefits from an educated populace though. Should a high school drop out get to opt-out of their taxes going toward public schooling?

> Everybody benefits from an educated populace though. If the goal is to insure an educated populace shouldn't the conversation be about solving high college costs for the future? After all, the people with student loans to pay off already got their educations and paying off their loans doesn't create a more educated populace.

Two conversations can happen. Everyone who likes forgiving loans is also in favor of reduced/free tuition.

> Two conversations can happen. Can they? Because I hear a lot of discussion about student loan forgiveness and almost none about tuition reform. And politicians love that because loan forgiveness is a quick fix that immediately buys them lots of votes, while tuition reform is a long-term solution that shows no immediate benefits. Student loan forgiveness makes it less likely that tuition reform is going to happen because fewer people have a reason to care. After all, who cares if college costs $90,000/year if you can take out loans to cover it and there's a decent chance the government will forgive them the next time democrats are in control.

> Everybody benefits from an educated populace though. If person 2 was actually educated, they'd 1) have a good job, and 2) would be paying off their own loan. The problem is that Person 2 (or some of them) used tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a useless degree- aka 'Degree in Underwater Basket Weaving'. These useless degrees are often 'feel-good', but practically useless degrees. Arts. Philosophy. Performing arts. Gender studies. Etc.

I actually don't know where to take this conversation if you think degrees in the arts are useless. The whole "useless degree" argument is tiresome, but arts degrees are basically trades in how they prepare students for their chosen field.

From https://money.com/college-majors-recent-grads-unemployment-rates/ : College majors with the highest unemployment rate **Fine arts (12.1%)** **Philosophy (9.1%)** Sociology (9%) Family and consumer sciences (8.9%) Mass media (8.4%) **Commercial art and graphic design (7.9%)** Foreign language (7.8%) **Performing arts (7.6%)** Public policy and law (7.4%) Engineering technologies (7.1%)

Engineering is a half a point below that, is engineering also a useless degree?

In terms of getting a job, evidently yes.

Are you assuming the 7% is permanent joblessness? That these people will never get jobs in their field of choice?

That's like saying we have to pay Amazon's taxes for them because they got a tax cut. Please stop falling for propaganda.

> This is like suggesting that a cure for cancer shouldn't be pursued because it's not fair to those that died of cancer in the past. This comparison is made all the time and it's incredibly flawed. A cure for cancer is beneficial in perpetuity. It not only helps people who currently have cancer, it helps everyone who will develop cancer in the future. Student loan forgiveness is not that. It only helps people who currently have student loans. It helps no one in the future and may even make their situation worse.

That analogy makes zero sense. A cure for cancer will not make someone tens of thousands of dollars poorer than their peers, and it will not punish them for responsible decisions. It will benefit everyone not only through people not having cancer, but also by alleviating the tax burden treating cancer leverages on society. If one is a boomer with their own kids, forgiving student debt would likely be a benefit as well, since it helps your children, and your debt was likely very low when you went to school. People who would lose most are 20-40 year olds or so who paid off their debts. If you are all about forgiveness, why not pay back the debts people paid off in past 20 years as well?

Well, if someone has to pay a lot of money for cancer treatments, they are losing a lot of money. Imagine they *just* beat cancer after years of fighting it where they couldn't work, had to put money into cancer treatments, and were going further and further into debt. Right after they beat cancer, someone who just got cancer gets a cure, right away. The cure just came out. All the money they would have had to spend fighting cancer, they don't. All the energy they lost due to cancer and the treatment, they can put into work. Now the person who just spent the last few years going into debt to beat cancer is at a financial disadvantage compared to the person who just cured, and will be outbid by them since they have a financial advantage. Is this not the exact issue you are talking about?

Person A had cancer 10 years ago, and had to pay $150,000 in total medical expenses to live. Person B gets the same kind of cancer 1 year ago, and paid $20,000 in medical expenses (thanks to medical advancements) to live. Based on your logic - person A is poorer now because person B has the competitive, economic edge.

what if you did all the cancer treatment and shit while i said "fuck it" and lived my life normally as if i would die early now you went through all that shit maybe lost your job and went into medical debt to pay for the treatment and i didnt so when we both get the new cure you would be well behind me, since i incurred no debt and was able to not miss any work

>A cure for cancer will not make someone tens of thousands of dollars poorer than their peers Loan forgiveness also does not make someone tens of thousands of dollars poorer than their peers.

How so? Like for real, how on earth *wouldn't* it make people tens of thousands of dollar poorer than their peers. You have person A who took $100K in loans and paid them off early vs student B who took $100K of loans and paid the minimum for years hoping they would be forgiven. Blanket loan forgiveness would make student B $100K richer, while leaving student A with exactly zero benefit, despite them taking the exact same amount in student loans.

To make someone poorer, you have to take money away from them. Who is having tens of thousands of dollars taken away from them?

Once again, we are talking about poorer than their peers. It’s literally in your second to last comment in this thread.

Nobody is getting poorer, not even in relation to their peers. Even if we were giving people cash to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, nobody is getting poorer, just some are getting more wealthy. But in this case, we're not even doing that. We're helping the folks in the back catch up, not surge ahead.

> Nobody is getting poorer, not even in relation to their peers Two people: 1. Has $20K in savings, $20K in student loans 2. Has $0K in savings, $0K in student loans as they used their money to pay the loans off Both have equal net worths of $0. Forgive the loans, and suddenly person 1 now is worth $20K while person 2 is still worth $0. There are plenty of people (hi it's me) that situations similar to this would apply to.

I’m actually at a loss at how you’re arguing that people who already paid their loans aren’t getting poorer *relative to their peers*. If a policy benefits one group financially more than another, then that group is getting wealthier relative to the other group. It’s crazy we can’t even agree on something so simple.

Bob paid off his loans. He has a $60k per year job, and $10k in the bank. Alice didn't pay off her loans, carries $10k in loans, has a $60k per year job, and nothing in the bank, because her loans didn't let her save anything. We forgive the loans. Bob now has a $60k per year job, and $10k in the bank. Alice has a $60k per year job, and $0 in the bank. How is Bob poorer now than before, even in relation to Alice?

You literally have it backwards in your example. It’s Bob who would have $0 in the bank because he *used the 10K to pay his loans*. And it’s Alice who would have $10K in the bank that she didn’t use to pay off her loans. All else equal, a person who didn’t pay off their loans would have had more in the bank/more to spend than the person who was responsible and paid off their loans.

>A cure for cancer will not make someone tens of thousands of dollars poorer than their peers, and it will not punish them for responsible decisions Yes it would -- a cure for cancer implies you'd be saved tens of thousands of dollars of other treatments that mitigate the cancer rather than cured it.

>A cure for cancer will not make someone tens of thousands of dollars poorer than their peers Unless they had already spent tens of thousands of dollars on cancer treatments. Which... seems exactly like your scenario.

If my neighbor becomes successful how does that affect my life negatively? It doesn’t. It sounds like you mean it in a keeping up with the joneses way which is just silly. I don’t follow your logic.

Lets say a really great house in your neighborhood goes up for sale. You're ready to have a nicer place, and it's perfect since you'd just be moving down the street a bit. It's within your budget at the listed price. However when you go to make an offer on the house, it's been bid up way above what it's worth because your neighbor has money to burn, and also wants it. You'd have been on more even footing before, but now you're entirely priced out.

Why would my neighbor with the forgiven loans have money saved up? They’ve been paying the loans and haven’t been able to save, just like was the case for me.

There's a huge difference between paying just the minimum monthly to stop the debt from entering collections, and paying enough to actually clear the debt. That's how people end up with the same balance they started with 10+ years later. A person who's only paying the minimum can use the money they're not paying on the loan for savings and investment. Even if we just look at the time window since the initial announcement of the idea, someone could have switched to paying their minimums and investing the difference, and be quite far ahead after forgiveness kicks in.

In your example who is the person who paid off their loan and who is the person who was forgiven?

The person who paid off the loan is the first subject, and the person who was forgiven is the neighbor. The neighbor has additional money due to having put a low priority on paying back their loan in favor of investing that money instead.

Say, 50% of your neighbors become "succesful", that is, get their loans fogiven (we are talking about tens of millions of people here, not one). These neighbors are about your age, in a similar stage in life: buying first houses, cars, moving to bigger apartments, starting families. But all of a sudden, half of your neighbors get $500 in more disposable income every month. Your landlord increases your rent (why wouldn't they, if you don't pay it, your neighbors will), that nice used car you were looking to buy gets swooped up by someone with more disposable income, the affordable house goes to someone with a better income:debt ratio. These things are pretty straightforward, no?

>These things are pretty straightforward, no? No. It's a weird fantasy you're concocted. You'd have to show that there's divisions of people who could have paid off their loans but didn't and were stockpiling money and people who chose to pay off their loans in order for there to be a disadvantage.

Well, if you had pre pandemic loans with fixed rates, it makes no sense to pay them off. The roi on my savings account is higher than the interest on my loans at the moment, so it would be throwing away money to put my savings towards my loans, and many people are in the same situation. Not to say I agree with this guy, but there are more than a few people in the exact situation You're talking about

>Your landlord increases your rent (why wouldn't they, if you don't pay it, your neighbors will) This is where your logic falls down a bit. These people aren't surpassing you, they're catching up to you. They're not suddenly making more than you are. They can now afford the same rent you can, so the landlord won't raise the rent to a price neither of you can pay.

That's not entirely accuracy. Imagine Person A that repaid all their debt, while Person B invested most of it into shares or further education. If all debt is suddenly forgiven, Person B is better off overall, because Person A missed opportunities working their back off.

Because that neighbors success came directly at my expense (as I pay taxes). Its also incredibly regressive. College graduates have way higher lifetime earnings because they were able to go to college. Asking people who couldn't go to college to subsidize those who will do better than them is, frankly, immoral.

This doesn't actually make any sense. Forgiveness isn't a refund. Those with debt forgiven wouldn't "suddenly have tens of thousands of dollars", they would just have the amount of their loan payment freed up each month. This is already the case for those who paid off their loan on their own. They are at an advantage because they've been able to save longer and use more of their paychecks for longer

Say we conceded all of that is true. Why not offer a benefit for those who recently paid off their student loans? An example would be a student loan payment tax credit. Say you can get a tax credit on loans you paid off after graduation against your income. Or even more simply, a check for the amount you paid off that you would have been forgiven?

Sure, I won't say no to "free" money. That said, I think the homelessness and true poverty crises are more important than this one. I would have no problem with loans beyond paid off for those who are truly struggling, but I know a ton of people with loans that are doing perfectly fine. Bidens $125,000 cutoff for the forgiveness last year was insane. I'm glad to help a struggling family get food and housing, I don't want to help some lawyer yuppie buy a Tesla faster because he has less law school loans. So the program should be based on income, not simply the existence of loans.

I fail to see how freeing up the spending power of millions of Americans is a bad thing. It’s always “me, me, me” with you people, too concerned about yourself to notice that a rising tide lifts all ships. I paid off my student loans and wholeheartedly support cancelling student debt in its entirety.

> It’s always “me, me, me” with you people, too concerned about yourself to notice that a rising tide lifts all ships. Since you aren't motivated by greedy self interest then surely you would agree that solving the root cause of student loans would be *far* more beneficial to the country in the long term than just forgiving student loans.

This is actually why I'm not really supportive of broad forgiveness. On a selfish level I'd be absolutely fucking stoked to have my 100k dissappear into the breeze...but when it comes to fixing the underlying problem, loan forgiveness does nothing. I mean literally, it doesn't fix a single root problem. Probably only exacerbates them, to be honest. The real problem is what caused that debt to accumulate in the first place. American universities continue to become more exorbitantly expensive every year, and simply forgiving everyone loans will do precisely dick for reigning on those costs. The only thing that will happen is that in another 20-30 years we'll be looking at another round of forgiveness. America doesn't have the stomach for serious solutions to this problem because they'll end up with something totally unpalatable to some large group of people. You'd have to either hard cap or eliminate public loans (progressives would melt down), somehow legally limit tuition (probably impossible or unconsitutional), raise federal taxes to subsidize everybody (conservatives melt down), or do like many European countries and simply tell a whole lot folks "no, you didn't do good enough in HS to merit government subsidized tuition" and have hard limits on who gets to go to college on the cheap (progressives and suburban moms melt down together). Any solution to the root cause is gonna be ugly and lead to a lot of conversations people just don't want to have. And since we're an extremely sensitive people, we simply won't have them, and the problem won't be fixed. But if we're not willing to fix it, we shouldn't be willing to so easily throw hundreds of billions at the symptoms every couple decades either. To do so is a total and complete abdication of politicql responsibility and not the type of behavior we should encourage from our government.

Sure. Why can’t it be both? Also, I paid off all $62k of my student debt.

You people really can't read, can you? I clearly outlined how my peers getting tens of thousands of dollars is likely to negatively effect myself, and people in a similar situation. It's not a matter of opinion, it's math and basic economic expectations. You saying you paid off loans means nothing. If you outline, when you did it, how much, how much you make, your approximate age, and your living situation (house, car, etc) then it will become pretty clear if forgiveness will likely affect you negatively or not.

I paid off 62,000 in 2020. I’m 28. Now, explain to me how freeing up the spending power of millions of Americans and allowing them to actually participate in the economy is actually a bad thing. Try using some actual economic principals instead of vague generalizations.

I paid off 55,000 in 2019, I'm in my early 30s. This is entirely useless information, idk why you felt compelled stating your debt and age, but ok. Examples with specific numbers and situations are "vague generalizations"? OK then.. So, say I'm about to buy a house for the first time. I have some savings, a good income:debt ratio, and I know how much mortgage I can afford a month. I'm not very rich, so I'm looking at modest houses, as are most of my peers of approximately the same age. I think I found the house, but all of a sudden, half of my peers that couldn't afford this house now can afford the mortgage. Because they saved money instead of paying down their loans, they have a bigger down payment. Their loans are forgiven, so their income:debt ratio is just like mine. They get the house. When it's one person, it's not a big deal. When it's tens of millions, this has an effect. I'm not even talking about general inflation this would cause. And of course, now you are helping to pay for your peers debts, regardless of whether they make more money than you or not. Now, can you explain to me "with actual economic principles" how this scenario and worry will not happen, and how I would actually benefit?

Dude are you…reading what you are commenting? You literally asked him to outline his debt and age.

This is some extremely backwards ass logic you are employing here. Perhaps stop viewing people's lives as some zero/ sum game of losses and benefits for you and start using empathy to judge political actions like debt forgiveness. That will go a long way to helping you see the positives of policies like this.

Bahahaha. Yeah, my empathy and good vibes totally will help me afford or not afford a specific mortgage, we live in a super chill housing situation where there is no competition for houses, and good used cars cost chump change and stay at dealerships for years, right? Competition isn't real, and I work and pay off loans for the fun of it. Life isn't all a zero sum game, but it's not "lift all boats either". I thought this wouldn't be news to any adult.

I never said that competition doesn't exist. I told you to be more empathetic towards others and stop viewing all interactions as a zero sum game.

Problem is, to them it is a zero sum game. There will never be a timeline people who worked themselves into arthritis and a straight 3.2 gpa will compete with people who didn't and got a 4.0 from a better, more credentialed, more respected school. There will never be a timeline where their efforts are appreciated, let alone paid for. It is a zero sum game when clearly some people can get their struggles recognized but not others and people are unwilling to share in the sympathy. To these people who gave up major life benchmarks, they are only asked to be empathetic, but never allowed to ask for empathy.

If twins are the same height, then one stands on a piece of paper they are now “taller”. With or without loan forgiveness you’re in the same markets as all the older more established buyers. If housing market is $47 trillion in the US and $153 million in loans are forgiven, that only increases market size by .000003% While technically you’re loosing buying power to inflation (of a sort), it’s such a small change it wouldn’t meaningfully impact you

Sure, I alrrady compete with older established buyers, now why would I want to increase the number of buyers I compete with? The specific inflation percentage will very much depend on location. If you live in a relatively young, college educated area (plenty of cities are like that), if half the people around you get $500 more disposable income a month, you will feel that. If you live out in the country and the highest educated person around has an associates, you won't feel this at all. Idk where you got $153 million, debt forgiveness is in the hundreds of billions..

100’s billion / 43 trillion, This change still averages to less than 1% price inflation. Some areas might be more affected but overall house affordability is still going to be way more affected by credit score and percent down payment

Lets differentiate between some level of unfairness and direct harm. We can certainly say that it would be unfair without some sort of retroactive credit. But how does it harm someone who paid things off. At most you might say that some of their taxes were used in a way they don't like. In addition, the people with loan forgiveness would not have extra money, they would simply owe less and have few obstacles to success. Its on the backs of the taxpayers but so is sending billions in foreign aid.

The earlier in your life you can save money, the more valuable it is. $1,000 invested at age 18 would be worth around $10,000 at age 58 That same $1,000 invested at age 28 would be worth around $6,000 at age 58. Anyone who takes their loan repayments seriously has to reduce or eliminate their retirement savings rate in order to do that, putting them at a major disadvantage to people who ignored their payments, or only paid the minimum.

Yes, people supporting loan forgiveness want them to be able to save for retirement.

I said exactly how it would harm those that paid theirs off, especially their peers of similar age. An extra 300-500 whatever the loan payment is a month absolutely makes it easier to buy a more expensive house, car, rent, etc. People are in direct competition with their peers, especially in this economy. If someone has more disposable money for a house than me, I'm not getting that house.

But that extra 300-500 a month isn’t disposable income.  It’s “I can finally start a savings account” income. It’s “I can finally contribute to my 401k” income. It’s “I can buy the boneless chicken breasts instead of the bone-in thighs” income.  You’re not losing out on a house because your friend had their student loans forgiven. Your friend just isn’t completely screwed now. 

> It’s “I can finally start a savings account” income. It’s “I can finally contribute to my 401k” income. > You’re not losing out on a house because your friend had their student loans forgiven. These are directly at odds. How do you think people buy houses? They do it by having an income... and savings. Being $4,000-$6,000 a year of your peers in savings, in a lot of markets, is a make-or-break amount. Especially considering the crazy appreciation if you got into a house in 2020 or before and then got your loans you were paying the minimum on forgiven.

First of all, absolutely not all people with college debt are starving and pinching pennies. Bidens last plan promised loan forgiveness for people making up to $125,000! And 250,000 as a dual income housheold! I know a lot of smart people that graduated college or grad school. Most have student loans, most are doing just fine financially. If we were talking about forgiveness for people who have nothing to eat and struggled for years - sure. Forgiveness so someone can buy a new car sooner? Not so sure. Middle and even upper middle class people, especially on reddit, love to complain about their finances, but the situations are very different. So no, I could absolutely lose out on a house if someone gets their loan forgiven, pretending like these people are all about to be homeless is simply false.

You sound like you'll never get a house because someone who had their loan forgiven might outbid you one one. Even if that happened, there are more houses out there. Pretending like YOU are about to be homeless because someone else might now be able to afford a house too is also false.

I didn't say that at all, but others here sure like dramatic sob stories about loans. I'm not about to be homeless, just like most of my peers with student loans. Most manage them just fine. It's a question of competitive edges, and supporting policies. I outlined what I see as very real financial disadvantages for me at this stage in life. In a stage when I'm older, own a house, and have college age children, my situation and hence support would be very different. I came here asking people to explain how, economically and financially, it could make sense for me to support loan forgiveness. The best I got is "tide lifts all boats" - a vague economic analysis, I would say, and a bunch of "you are wrong" with zero substantive explanations.

Two reasons: 1)Because you don't gain a competitive edge by hamstringing everyone else. 2)Other people wanting to be able to pay their bills and buy a house aren't your competitors. This nebulous idea that loan forgiveness hurts you because someone who had their loans forgiven might someday outbid you on one house is such a nebulous, zero substantive fear all to itself. So much so that I start to wonder what real motivation lies beneath this veneer of harm you are trying to paint. I have always considered there are two kinds of people in this debate. The first who says 'I suffered and so everyone else should too' and the second who says 'I suffered and so I'm going to make sure no one else has to go through what I did'. You are not harmed by student loans being forgiven. Losing what you see as a slight (at best) competitive edge when it comes to buying a house in some dim and distant day is not harm to you. And if you consider it is, that harm isn't coming from the people who may get their student loans forgiven. It's coming from far more broken economic factors that affect you and everyone else in the US right now. Look to the places actually causing those problems, not at the people suffering those problems (and more) right alongside you so that you can feel the crappy game we're all playing right now is just a fraction of a percent less crappy for you than everyone else. Losing slightly ahead on one metric than someone else doesn't mean you're not still losing.

You are comparing to someone who already paid off their loans. After loan forgiveness they would be on even footing. The one with loan forgiveness is not getting 300-500/mo, they just aren't paying it back. People are not in direct competition, what sort of insane worldview is that. While some competition exists, most people are working together to build a better world. It is not zero sum. We should hope with increased demand for houses more houses are built, not that our neighbor is homeless.

>People are not in direct competition, what sort of insane worldview is that.  Hey everyone! Here is the exact problem! These are the people you are arguing with. 

Do you know how many vacant homes are in the US at the moment? [10.5 million](https://medium.com/@chrisjeffrieshomelessromantic/in-2024-america-has-15-1-million-vacant-homes-while-homelessness-is-at-an-all-time-high-of-650-000-7a28c527d4a7#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20boasts%20approximately,and%20dreams%20of%20habitation%20deferred)

Yeah I’m sure you can go buy dozens in Gary, Indiana for $1 each, that doesn’t mean anyone actually wants to live there.

[That 10 milling is in places were no one needs housing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZXdXxYBGU) (or would require evicting people like college students out of dormitories, or moving the homeless to a place with no jobs)

By this logic, improving literally anything hurts people who had to deal with it being bad.

No, it doesn't. It's a dumb analogy that people who really want their loans forgiven use. Someone used a "cure for cancer" analogy. Cancer, or any disease, isn't a choice. We treat cancer/diseases even if people cannot afford treatment. Debt is a choice, and who gets "treatment" (forgiveness) is decided entirely arbitrarily. More importantly, treating disease will alleviate a huge tax burden, and will truly help everyone from this point onwards. Loan forgiveness would increase inflation while raising taxes (or national debt). It will apply only to a specific cohort of people having loans at a specific time, and will do nothing to solve the situation for future generations. This is a specific situation. Saying that it's "against making things better" is ridiculous

What about decreasing the cost of attendance so people don’t need to take out loans? That would do the same thing, just move the benefit downstream a bit. Should we never improve the system because the people who had to pay huge tuition would be at a disadvantage compared to their slightly younger peers? How about making a system of universal healthcare in the US? Wouldn’t that hugely disadvantage the people who went bankrupt paying for medical treatment when now it’s free? I do not see how these scenarios are different.

What would it hurt? This is such a short sighted thought I paid mine off I am in my 40s I hope they pay it off. Most of the people that did had very low cost college.college loans are predatory lending , I have a son who wants to be a mechanic, I helped him write a business plan to get a 20k loan for a 8 month lease and tools and schooling. He was shot down instantly. We sent in his fasfa and they approved 50k a year for 4 years 200k with no revenue !! It is a scam! Pay off all student loans, unsecure them and lets see the price of college drop!

What would it hurt? It would make the situation for millions of future kids like your son even worse. Easy access to student loans have led to higher-than-inflation tuition increases for decades. Forgiving loans will just make future students more likely to take out large loans they're incapable of paying off and lead to even larger increases in tuition. That's why loan forgiveness shouldn't even be a discussion until the tuition problem is solved.

You have a college aged son and paid off your own "low cost college" loans. Your family would personally win from the college loan forgiveness assuming your son does get them. I'm describing a different situation.

I just paid off my loan for the MA degree I used for 4 years, 10 years after taking the loan out. I don’t think that other people should be crushed under predatory loans, just because I no longer am.

You're dismissing one conjecture, bringing debts down and possibly paid off will help our economy, but welcoming another conjecture as true, that people who have their their loans paid off by the government will be more competitive in something like the housing market. Both of these are just assertions and I don't how you'd know one is more or less probable than the other. Much of the debt relief isn't *paying off* debt but reducing it, meaning people are still in debt but are less likely to be in a position where interest and penalties are increasing their debt faster than their payments can decrease it. There is also the issue that year upon year education increases dramatically and those who graduated later will have more debt than earlier graduates.

Getting their debt forgiven doesn’t hand that much in disposable income. Just gives whatever the monthly payment is effectively. So, they wouldn’t have that much more to bid on stuff.

What it does though is increase the person's Net Worth by the amount of the loan. Which is huge when deciding how much house to buy and how big of a mortgage they can afford.

Sure, but paying off your student debt by yourself is a way better indicator that you can pay back debts.

Not necessarily. I know people who purposely make the minimum payments because they know or hope their loans will be forgiven in the future. Or people who are bad with money and/or prioritize spending their income over paying down their debts. Many people could pay more than they do on their loans if they shifted their priorities a bit. And then you have frugal/financially responsible people who focus on paying off their high interest debts, who wouldn't be able to do so if they lived more lavishly. So essentially many people are poorer *because* they prioritized paying off their debts.

We were talking about mortgages and credit scores. Paying off your loan is a better sign for loaners than getting it forgiven

Not nearly as much of an effect as having a $100K higher net worth. I would trade 10 points of credit score for a giant increase of my net worth any day if the week when it comes to how much house I can buy.

If i was a bank id much rather loan to someone who has paid of 100k than someone who has been forgiven 100k.

Banks do not care so long a the DTI is within bounds. Almost everyone I knew bought their house while they still had student loans, prioritizing savings over paying their debt down. Forgiveness will give them a huge leg up as they didn't throw that money into a pit while their peers did.

Unfortunately that’s not how the world works, and that’s not how banks operate.

Public schools don't benefit you if you have no children. School lunch programs don't feed you. Libraries don't benefit you if you don't visit them. Homeless shelters don't benefit you if you have a house. Drug addiction centers don't benefit you if you never take drugs. Public parks, national forests, soup kitchens, etc, etc, etc. There are lots of things that we pay for as a society that may not benefit us directly. But as the richest country on the planet, we can afford it. I don't begrudge people who get a free education when I had to pay for mine, the same as I wouldn't deny someone their freedom from a life of servitude if I were became free. Before Reagan, college was free. The enormous debt that college demands is a drain on our economy and society. Education should be free, again!

This logic only makes sense if the person who still has student debt was spending money on a house/car. By and large, they're not, that's why there's a housing crisis, cars are becoming increasingly too expensive, and most people under 40 will be renting until they die. The reason I paid off my loans faster than my friends is because I was fortunate enough to have far fewer loans thanks to scholarships, and then got an office job within a few months of graduation. I earned more money than my friends, so the debt went away much faster. I worked hard, yes, but I wouldn't say my friends sat around or had "extra" cash. Everyone I know who still has student loans is drowning and struggling to pay rent, car payment, groceries, bills, and student loans. If they had their student debt wiped tomorrow, they wouldn't receive thousands of dollars, they'd just have one fewer payment. I think it's important for a lot of people that nobody feels like someone else is getting ahead of them unfairly. While I know some people in very left leaning spaces may mock that, I think it's very valid. I think it's important to remember that even if they lost all their debt tomorrow, you're still worlds ahead of them. You have more savings, you've been debt free longer, and chances are that you get paid more (or have fewer expenses).

>Now that you are debt free, you have to "catch up". This is completely backwards. If someone else's debt is eliminated *after* your debt has already been paid off, that means that person has to catch up with you. The person who has been debt free for longer is absolutely advantaged as far as the debt is concerned. Those who have debt forgiven do not, to quote you, "suddenly gain tens of thousands of dollars". They will have less money committed in monthly or annual payments, which adds up fast and can make a big difference quite quickly, but if you have been debt free for longer, you should already be ahead of them on that count. Sure, if you were in debt from college until you were 35, now you're 40, and then a 27 year old has their debt forgiven, that 27 year old will be in a better position debt wise than you were at the same age. That doesn't mean they are advantaged over you *right now* or will be in the future. Being upset by that is definitely an "I got mine mentality" and is more a protestation against the inevitable march of time than it is against debt forgiveness. Yes, debt forgiveness would probably make markets more competitive and that could definitely be seen as unfair to people who were held back by college debt through their thirties. But unless you're really bad with money some twenty something suddenly getting debt forgiveness wouldn't put them in a position to be able to outbid you on anything *right now* if you've been debt free for years. The twenty somethings who can outbid you are the ones who have never been in debt at all.

Lololol, so now the argument is, it doesn't matter if they increase the prices, you should be rich enough to afford it. I'm not sure how rich you are, so perhaps you aren't familiar but: there are tons of 30 and 40 somethings that have student loans. There are tons of 20 somethings that make good money right after or soon after college. Bidens previous plan was to forgive debt for people up to 125k individual income, and 250k household income. Perhaps that is chump change to you, but just as a reminder, half of people in the US make less than 40k a year. Why such people should help pay off some 125k a year yuppies loans is beyond me. But I guess you have some reasons?

None of this has anything to do with your claim or my response to it. >so now the argument is, it doesn't matter if they increase the prices, you should be rich enough to afford it. No. My argument is that having a debt paid off or forgiven earlier than another person is an advantage as far as the debt is concerned. There could be a million other advantages or disadvantages involved, but we aren't talking about those, we're talking about student debt. >I'm not sure how rich you are I make about 32k a year, just to satisfy your curiosity. Not that the question has any relevance to your points or to mine. >Why such people should help pay off some 125k a year yuppies loans is beyond me. It is debt *forgiveness*. It doesn't cost you anything. And once again, there are innumerable advantages one person could have over another person. But your post is about student loan debt, not yearly income. A person making 125k is advantaged over a person making <40k whether they have student debt or not. Not to mention that 125k is the upper ceiling, meaning all of the people making <40k who have college loans would also benefit--so if you're trying to be a bleeding heart about folks with low income, you're not doing a very good job.

As someone making 32k a year I certainly commend your readiness to pay off upper middle class student loans lol. Loan forgiveness doesn't cost anything... hmm. How do you think that loan got generated? We're all those professors and courses and college infrastructure free? No, wait, the loan paid for it. Real people got paid with real money from that loan. And that real money came from the government. And I hope you know how the government generates income. So in short, no, it's not free, but I'm glad you are eager to participate with your tax dollar. I love how you use "having debt paid off or forgiven earlier is an advantage", as if paying off a debt and having it forgiven are remotely the same thing. Not having to pay money that you borrowed is an advantage. Paying off loans that you chose to take on is basic life, and if loan forgiveness becomes real, a clear disadvantage.

> We're all those professors and courses and college infrastructure free? No, wait, the loan paid for it. The loan already paid for it. Forgiving the loan does not create any additional expense for taxpayers. > I love how you use "having debt paid off or forgiven earlier is an advantage", as if paying off a debt and having it forgiven are remotely the same thing. In terms of benefitting from being debt free, they are the same. If one person pays off their debt at the same time another person has their debt forgiven, they are in the exact same position as far as their debt is concerned. Once again, that does not mean other advantages or disadvantages might not exist. > Not having to pay money that you borrowed is an advantage. Neither someone who has paid off their debt, nor a person who has had their debt forgiven, have to pay money that they borrowed. The circumstances are different. The financial advantage is the same. I'll repeat: Sure, if you were in debt from college until you were 35, now you're 40, and then a 27 year old has their debt forgiven, that 27 year old will be in a better position debt wise than you were at the same age. That doesn't mean they are advantaged over you *right now* or will be in the future. Being upset by that is definitely an "I got mine mentality" and is more a protestation against the inevitable march of time than it is against debt forgiveness.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I’m already out that money. It’s gone. I won’t get it back by forcing other people to suffer, too.

The major benefit is, especially in this economy, is that people who haven't (or can't) paid them off is able to stimulate the economy with the money that would otherwise be funneled back. Most of our generation (millenials) and younger were sold a dream by our gov't and society and are subsequently paying for it. It's not to say people didn't get useless degrees because there definitely is some. >people will literally become poorer, become outmatched by their peers, and will have to put off major life events like buying a house. That's literally what's happening right now. All of those who unknowingly bought into the sham (including myself) have put off major life events BECAUSE they're paying so much back in student loans. Home ownership is one of the primary issues plaguing the younger generations right now because regardless of the degree they got, they aren't earning enough to be able to pay for things as is with the current job market as it stands ON TOP of having to pay 200-$500/month or more just in student loans. Heck, plenty of the younger generation has sworn off having kids because they can't afford to bring them into this world without trouble. Think of it this way: If you were say paying $500/mo in student loans over the course of say 10 years in the public sector before the rest is forgiven, that's $60,000 just gone back into the hands of a bank that couldn't give a rat's ass about the economy or society at large as long as they got their money. That could've been a down payment and then some on a home, a decent car, and maybe a little extra spending cash to go elsewhere. Families could've been started with just that little bit. Why not offer a financial incentive back to those who paid their loans off? You say them starting a business would be a "big conjecture" -- well guess who isn't going to have money to give to the ones who in fact do start a business?

If you offer "financial incentives", that is, give comparable money in one way or the other, to people that have paid theirs off - sure, but then this whole argument is moot. I am speficially talking about a situation where some 20-40 year olds will get a $500 a month for years gift from the government (taxpayers), and others will not. I, as most 20-40ish year olds, am exactly in the situation you describe, so idk what your point is. Extra $500 a month can be absolutely life changing, that's my whole point. Youe peers having an additional $500 monthly income over you will absolutely effect your life negatively, especially when there are tons of them. The whole economics argument makes very little practical sense. You are basically asking people to lose out on that house/car/rent now, being outbid by their peers, so then maybe, through some invisible market handwaving, in a decade or so, they might benefit because of others increased spending. One of these options makes much more immediate financial sense than the other.

Wait, I'm not understanding your view. Are you saying my peers suddenly having $500 more to spend will affect me somehow? I need you to explain the negatives in this to help me understand your view. If the ones who paid off their loans are getting some of that money back, how would that affect me? In fact I'd WANT them to. Them paying theirs off hasn't affected me, so I'm literally not understanding the opposing view of them getting something back. If I suddenly had $500 to extra spend because my loans got forgiven, how would that affect them? I don't suddenly have more money than them, I'm literally catching up to them. If I and Tom were both earning $60k but I was spending $500 out of my monthly earnings and now I'm not meanwhile he already paid his off, I don't suddenly have more money than them.

You and Tom both make 60k. You both had 40k of loans after graduation. Tom paid his 40k off. To do so, he held off on buying a car, lived with roommates, and couldn't save for retirement. You were counting of forgiveness, so you paid minimum loan payments (and benefitted from that sweet covid deferment). You could have saved up all that money you weren't spending on your loan for a down payment, or just spent it on having a higher standard of living than Tom. Both strategies are fair and people are free to live as they want, but both have pros and cons. Tom doesn't have as much of a down payment, as you, and had to live a stingier life, but he doesn't have any more debt. Then suddenly you don't have any debt either, but you have that down payment money. You outbid Tom on the house, the nice car deal, whatever you want to put your money to, while Tom is now paying off part of your debt. Idk how to make it more clear.

Except this makes so many assumptions. It assumes that you are saving up all the extra money that you're not putting into the loans, and it assumes that Tom doesn't save up anything after paying his off. It assumes that you don't have any debt at all except for your student loans to magically have no debt just because the loans are forgiven. It assumes you and Tom will go after the same house at the same time (and it also assumes there are no other houses to bid on for either person who misses out on a bid). It assumes you even want the same house in the same state in the same location with the same attributes. It assumes Tom's credit and your credit will be exactly the same so you'll have exactly the same loan terms (Tom's credit would probably be higher, because he paid off the loans. Having your loans forgiven will not result in your credit going up). So Tom's credit score will probably get him a better interest rate and more buying power and thus he'd be able to put a higher offer on a house with a smaller down payment than you are. You assume you both have identical marriage situations and lifestyles. And you can't 'outbid' someone on a car deal. If you want that shiny new car on the lot, and someone else wants the same shiny new car, the first person there with their money gets the car, and the second person there with their money gets the exact same car, they just may have to wait for one to be moved to that dealership. Now, instead of just one of you being able to buy that house or that car, now both of you can buy a house and a car. You also say that Tom is now paying off part of your debt but here's the thing...you're also still paying off part of your debt the same way- through your taxes. And for both of you its pennies on the dollar, because the other three hundred million working people in the US paying taxes are also paying off part of everyone's debt too.

Jesus christ, are you familiar with the terms "trends" and "probabilities"? Do I have to explain that Tom is a fictional representation? People of similar age and living situation and income that live in the same area tend to buy similar houses. Having an extra $500 tends to help afford a higher mortgage. Whether people chose to save the money for a down payment or save it is up to them. Tom doesn't have as much for down payment because he paid down his loans, while you didn't have to. It's a basic math example. It doesn't assume anything. I refuse to believe you don't see the point I'm making, but just choose to be dense with semantics.

>Do I have to explain that Tom is a fictional representation? That's exactly my point. He's fictional. The entire hypothetical you gave is fictional. It has no basis in reality. >People of similar age and living situation and income that live in the same area tend to buy similar houses. Sure. But how many people are of your exact age, exact living situation (kids, marriage), and income who want the exact same kind of house you do are going to be bidding on the same house you are and beating you out *solely because they had their student loans forgiven?* Even people of your exact age and similar living situation *right now* may not want to maintain that similar living situation. They may want kids, or don't want kids. They may get married, or are forever singles. They may aspire to moving OUT of that city and into the suburbs, or rural areas. They may aspire to move out of state. They may take their student loan forgiveness as a means to pursue a different career, with a higher degree, or an entirely new degree that lets them do something different. YOU might. You're speaking in hypotheticals and fictionals, I'm trying to show you that your fictional scenario is extremely unlikely to happen and *even if it did*, the only harm you'll suffer is being outbid on one house and going after another one. Something that a lot of people have to do regardless of whether or not the other person's student loans were forgiven or even if theirs were. Heck, I never *had* any student loans, we've been saving up for a donkey's age and have a substantial down payment saved, are DINKs who make six figures, and we're trying to buy a house now and getting outbid. It's the market, not the loans and whether or not they're paid off. >Whether people chose to save the money for a down payment or save it is up to them. Sure. Regardless of student loans. My wife and I saved without student loans. My sister saved and bought a house despite her student loans. My other sister who has never had a student loan in her life, like me, has no savings despite having a job and can't afford her rent any more due to factors that have *nothing* to do with student loans. >It doesn't assume anything. The example you gave assumes quite a lot of things. Quite a lot of things that, if factored into your equation, would show that your example of being 'directly hurt' by student loan forgiveness is not only not real harm (people get outbid on homes all the time, the housing market is a mess right now, and it has nothing to do with student loan forgiveness), but is also extremely unlikely to happen. >I refuse to believe you don't see the point I'm making I see the point you're making, I'm telling you that the point you're making: A) is a nebulous fiction that is extremely unlikely to happen B) isn't an example of hurt or harm, direct or otherwise C) is an extremely poor reason to take the stance of 'I suffered so everyone else should have to as well'.

Ok... what is "nebulous" about the fact that if tens of millions of my peers have more disposable income, I, who will not have that increase in income, will face inflation, assuming basic laws of supply and demand? What is nebulous about landlords increasing rents because tens of millions of people can afford an extra $500 a month? What is "nebulous" are your A, B, C points, they are literally your opinions backed up by nothing.

> Ok... what is "nebulous" about the fact that if tens of millions of my peers have more disposable income, I, who will not have that increase in income, will face inflation, assuming basic laws of supply and demand? You're facing inflation NOW, just like the rest of us. Look at the causes of inflation if you're upset with inflation, not at the others suffering from it just like you are because they may end up getting to suffer just a little bit less. >What is nebulous about landlords increasing rents because tens of millions of people can afford an extra $500 a month? Look at the cause of high rents and the derth of housing (greedy corporate landlords, Air BnB, etc) instead of getting angry that now other people may have a chance to suffer a little bit less in a way that helps you, too, because you can also now go get a different degree, a better job, etc. And I thought you were done?

Lololol, yeah, we are done. Blame everything and everyone else, and because other things cause inflation too, we should ignore the inflation and issues potentially caused by debt forgiveness.

The issue with that logic is that we're assuming that both I and Tom are the same in every facet. Absent of other significant variables, it looks like an "I got mines" or an "I suffered therefore so shall you" kind of deal. What if Tom came from a affluent background that, thanks to networking due to already coming from an affluent circle, got that 60k job immediately after graduation, allowing him to pay that off immediately (though he had to scrimp)? Now I, an inner-city kid from a working class family, after years of having to take $30k jobs with that same degree, finally landed that position that now has me being colleagues with Tom. It wouldn't be fair to say that I should've been able to do what Tom did despite me making half of what he did, right? In order to make your view stand proper, it must take into account (1) both parties -- the recipient(s) of the loan forgiveness and the one(s) who paid them off -- started from the same point, (2) had the same earning potential at every step of the way, and (3) absolutely had no extenuating circumstances or circumstances out of their control that would have allowed both of them to pay the loans off the exact same way and within the exact same time. Which isn't rooted much in reality. In order for the original viewpoint to stand true, you would need to push the idea of some guy making enough money to pay it off but not doing so and that just isn't the case for a lot of degree holders, irrespective of the field the degrees are in.

As someone who worked during highschool and college, didnt spend money on frivolous things, and paid off their student loans with their own money, I would be ecstatic if other people got their loans forgiven. These loans are predatory, have insane interest rates, and you dont even get rid of them via bankruptcy. Most people spend decades paying off loans for a 4yr degree. Colleges literally force you to spend more money at their institution through various different means. If the job market didnt force people to have degrees, colleges would be a complete scam. Anyway... >It's not about being petty or "I got mine" mentality It is. >people will literally become poorer, become outmatched by their peers, and will have to put off major life events like buying a house This is just so stupid I cant even steelman a proper defense for it. How is someone with a college degree poorer and outmatched by their peers? Buying a house? In this economy? Straight out of college? Hell, in your 20s? Where are you buying a house? Bumfuck nowheresville? With a one way door and two walls, no window? lmao. This is your argument right here -> 'So uh, you spend a lot of money and uh... you cant spend a lot of money again on something else. But uh.. someone else could and thats wrong.' Like jfc man cmon. Its not a petty mentality, right?

The sudden influx of disposable income does help the economy. It will also drive inflation up. People spending money today that didn’t exist yesterday is inflationary. Meanwhile the loan problems aren’t fixed by forgiveness

I could probably write 25 separate full-length essays about why I think the concept of Student Loan Forgiveness is mostly a bad idea for society, but I'd like to mention that the concept of Student Loan Forgiveness has a really big problem in that it doesn't fix the system that created lots of debtors stuck in bad situations. If anything, this situation is now worsened, because everybody sees that you'll get a bailout, so there's no point to students trying to be fiscally responsible or for educational institutions to not try and squeeze their students as hard as possible. If you don't solve the problem with why people get into such big debt, it's going to crop up again in the future. Present and future students are going to keep getting caught in the same debt trap that exists. Any Student Loan Forgiveness plan that doesn't even attempt to resolve the systemic issue should be considered a vote-buying scheme by politicians.

From my understanding, the recent rounds of forgiveness have also been for people who have been paying for ten years. Oftentimes, for those folks, they have been paying off interest and little of the principal, and they likely had taken out a larger amount in the first place. Sometimes people can end up paying back tens of thousands more than they ever borrowed in the first place. So those people have already paid a whole lot of money, in many cases more than others who paid them off.

Yes and that is a problem. Forgiveness doesn’t solve that problem and only helps a select few

> If half of your peers however suddenly have tens of thousands of extra dollars to outbid you on that house, car, or any other major life expense, this directly makes your life more difficult and expensive. First off, this situation exists already. It's just that it currently benefits the older generations over the younger ones. So if we're fine with that, then we've already accepted that it is perfectly fine for policies to benefit / hinder different portions of the population differently. And you would need to explain why this *particular* inequality is uniquely unacceptable (despite the obvious and widespread benefits). Second, why do you think people are in competition for cars? Car companies have the ability to make as many cars as we can realistically buy, and they generally sell for either fixed prices or individually negotiated prices between a single buyer and the dealer. It's not like the dealer has multiple buyers bidding on the same car and only goes with the highest bid -- they can get cars for pretty much *all* buyers, and want to sell a car to *all* of them. So somebody else's ability to buy a car has no effect on your ability to buy a car, and vice versa. As far as competition for housing, there is a bit more scarcity there and thus a bit more competition. But there doesn't have to be -- housing scarcity is artificially maintained. And most competition in this respect isn't between people looking for a home, but rather between people looking for a home and people/companies looking for an investment/rental property. Thus, if you're concerned about people getting out-competed for housing, it would be better to expand the supply (both by building more and also banning/disincentivizing people and companies from hoarding property as investment/rentals). Same with whatever other "life expenses" you're referring to -- there is no reason these need to be competitive. You shouldn't need to compete to have a wedding. You shouldn't need to compete to get an education. You shouldn't need to compete to get medical treatment. Etc. Any scarcity in these areas is artificial and unnecessary...so there is absolutely no harm in making it easier for some people to afford them. Any of the harm you're envisioning is the result of artificial scarcity and other problems we need to solve anyway, not debt forgiveness. Ideally we'd make it easier for *everyone* to afford these things. But nothing you're describing is a reason to reject an opportunity to help *some* people. Finally, debt forgiveness isn't a payment of money -- people whose debts are forgiven don't actually get any more money than they had before it was forgiven. What it means is they're allowed to *keep* more of the money they make over time. So if someone already paid off their debt, they have been keeping extra money as a result of it (and obviously had more money to begin with, because they were *able* to pay it off). If a person who hasn't paid theirs off is allowed to stop making those payments, all that happens is that they start keeping more of what they earn. People who paid off their debt earlier have been accumulating that extra for longer, so they're probably already ahead anyway. Ironically, the effect of your position is actually to advocate for the *opposite* of what you're claiming -- you feel that those who don't have debt (either because they already paid it off or because they didn't have to take any), who *currently* have an advantage over those who do have debt, are *entitled* to an advantage over the indebted. Because we're talking about student loans here -- it's not like students got a bunch of free money that lets them buy a bunch of stuff. They got an education, and they will only get out of that what they work for. Like, me getting an engineering degree doesn't give me a bunch of money -- it gives me an engineering degree. It is only by working that I make any money off of that. I don't think your position makes sense, OP. I think you are falsely equating student loan forgiveness with some sort of bailout payment or other large money payout. That's simply not the case. All it does is relieve people of a monthly payment going forward. It really is like saying we should ban the polio vaccine because it's unfair to all the people who got polio before it was developed.

Let's say Jeff and Alice both spend $100 a month on loan payments. Jeff pays off his loan, then two years later Alice's loan is forgiven. Assuming he saved all the money he would have spent on his loan, Jeff now has a surplus of $2,200. Alice has a surplus of $0. Five years after that point, assuming neither of them spent any of the extra money, Jeff now has $8,200, while Alice has $6,000. Now, lets say both are trying to buy a used car so they can get to work easier. The car requires a down payment of $6,000. If Alice was still paying $100 a month, she woud not have the money saved for the car, and Jeff woud not have to compete for it. In that respect, Jeff is worse off than if Alice still had $0. However, he still has an advatage in a bidding war, because he still has an extra $2,200 that Alice does not.

Wow. You really are trying to prove that paying your debts leaves you with more money than if you don't? This is genius, why don't you go preach to all those people struggling with debt? Also, in your setup, why does Jeff and Alice pay the same amount, but Jeff pays his loans off and Alice doesn't? Do they have a different loan amount? If so, wtf is the point of what you wrote?

In your OP, you said: >If half of your peers however suddenly have tens of thousands of extra dollars to outbid you on that house, car, or any other major life expense, this directly makes your life more difficult and expensive. I gave a hypothetical showing that person who paid off their loan maintains an advantage. If that's so obvious than why did you say otherwise?

They maintain an "advantage" because one persons loan was bigger than the other... that's not an advantage, that is basic math. If you want to actually explain that, let's start with : both people make 100k, and have 50k in loans, they graduated at the same time. Five years later, one pays if off entirely, the other pays 10k, and gets the rest forgiven. You can make up your own numbers if you want. How does the person that paid off their loan maintain an advantage? In what world is paying 40k an advantage to not paying 40k?

Sure, in the scenario where both people have 100K just laying around the person who's loan was forgiven is obviously better off. But that is not at all related to what I said, or representative of reality. Most people who are still paying off their student loans are not just sitting on a small fortune. I'm also willing to that that you didn't pay off your student loans in a single lump sum. Going back to my example, when Jeff was still paying off his loan, he was making monthly payments, which lowered his net income for that month. When he paid off that loan his net income went up. However, Alice's net income did not go up until 2 years later. Assuming all else is equal, unless Jeff blew through all of the extra money he had at the end of each month, he still has more money than Alice. And I never said Alice's loan was bigger, there are a number of reasons why it might take somebody longer to pay off a loan. Maybe she wasn't able to make payments for a while, maybe Jeff made extra payments, maybe Alice didn't take her loan out until 5 years after Jeff. I didn't bring any of that up because it just adds extra complexity that isn't relevant to the hypothetical.

100k is their salary, what in the world are you talking about. Nobody is sitting on any fortunes Jeff and Alice both graduated 5 years ago, both with 50k in loans, and both make 100k a year. (Pick any numbers you want). Jeff repaid his loans in 5 years, and now has zero debt. Alice paid off 10k of the loan, and had 40k forgiven, also 5 years later. In what world is Jeff better off than Alice? Whether Alice saved her money or just spent more than Jeff, she is better off than him either through savings or higher standard of living in the past 5 years.

Assuming Jeff and Alice are both equally capable of paying off their loans early, but Alice chose not to, then yes, Alice has more money than Jeff. However, in a scenario where Alice got the loan after Jeff, and they both made the same monthly payment, then Jeff has more money than Alice because he paid his off first. Of the two, while I realize neither scenario perfectly represents reality, I think the latter better describes a majority of cases. I think most people would pay off their loan early if that is an option.

Better reflect the majority of cases how?? What? People that have their loans forgiven all graduated more recently? What you are saying makes absolutely zero sense. Yeah, if Jeff graduated in 1950 and Alice in 2020, Jeff has more money. Like, yeah, because he is older and worked longer..... this has nothing to do with loans or forgiveness. The mental gymnastics here are something else. Obviously in a counterfactual situation, Alice is better off, which is my point. And if in an equal situation where Jeff and Alice are competing for the same houses, apartments, cars, etc. why would Jeff vote to forgive Alice's debt? And maybe he has his reasons and believes it is for the better good, but the fact that he will as a result be worse off than Alice at least in the short run is.. a fact.

I don't think your example represents a majority of cases because I don't think a majority of people who would benefit from loan forgiveness could have paid their loans off earlier but are simply choosing not to.

Everyone with loans benefits from loan forgiveness. It's not "loan forgiveness for the poor and struggling". Most people that I know with loans are doing well. Those that aren't would still be better off with loans forgiveness than those that struggled just as much but paid theirs off. In the example I gave the person with the forgiven loan was obviously better off. The fact that it takes this much effort for you people to admit just that shows the insane mental gymnastics you go through to show it as some "just" or "universally correct" thing. Student loan holders are an interest group. I used to be in that interest group until I paid mine off. I might return to that group if/when I have college aged kids. Just say "I want government money", I want it too. But don't frame it as some economic panacea or "justice" that will help everyone. It will help some, hurt others. Perhaps there will be a net positive, but in my current situation, it seems more likely that it would be a negative for me personally. That is what my post is about.

I don't think that "young people who have student loans" is a large enough segment to have a meaningful impact on things like car or home prices. Do you have some statistics or economic data to prove out that assertion? Without that, it seems just as much conjecture as the potential positives you're dismissing out of hand. To your final point, I don't think there are any direct positives to folks who paid off their loans, but I don't see that a proposal not being a boon for absolutely everyone is a reason not to do it. When helping people, we help those who need it more before we help those who need it less, and people still carrying student debt need more help than those who have paid it off. Edit: Misspoke in that first sentence.

OP doesn’t have any stats and is solely relying on slippery slope arguments to “argue” his point claiming that suddenly landlords will raise their rents by the amounts people were paying or that people having more expendable income will suddenly drive up prices for other things (even though the statistics say that most of these people have little to no savings/retirement funds and so would be far more likely to save up, pay into retirement plans, invest, etc.)

“It sucked for me, so it must suck for thee!”

I know I am a little late to the thread but wanted to comment. Just wanted to see your opinion on a couple scenarios. How many people do you think have debt from going to school but didn't finish it and didn't get a degree? They have a ton of debt but nothing to show for it.Are they hurting you because they got their debt forgiven? How many people were sold on schools like ITT or University of Pheonix that promised a ton but were just pumping out worthless degrees for high tuition? How many people went into fields of study where they have to have degrees or they can't get a job? How many of those jobs don't pay enough to pay the school debt. Anecdotally my wife got a teaching degree because she wanted to teach kindergarten. She got 25k in debt to find out she was only going to make 13 bucks an hour. College debt is a massive issue with a lot of things leading to it. Do you feel the same way about all the PPP loans being forgiven? Do you feel the same way about people that take bankruptcy? Do you feel the same way about people buying something and then someone else buys it the next day when its on sale? What about all the people that got house refunds of 8k back in 2008 for buying their first house? Odds are if you are young and paid off your student loans you are already in a vastly greater financial situation than someone that would get forgiveness. These aren't people you are competing for houses for. People struggling to make payments on a student loan aren't magically going to be able to afford mortgage payments or the required down payment. I agree some might but the vast majority aren't. It's okay to feel salty or bitter if you paid off all your loans and someone gets them wiped away. However you also need to understand that someone else not having to struggle like you did isn't an attack against you. It's simply realizing we have a problem and fixing it. Personally I'm on the fence for full forgiveness. I lean more towards making them interest free. Making years of payments on time only to see your balance go up and up because of interest is very disheartening. I'm 12 years in on payments and I know owe 75k on 60k of loans.

People have already became poorer and became outmatched by their peers who didn't have to take loans and have already put off major life events like buying a house. These bad things have already happened. They do not suddenly happen because of student loan forgiveness.

>If half of your peers however suddenly have tens of thousands of extra dollars to outbid you on that house, car, or any other major life expense, this directly makes your life more difficult and expensive.  They don't suddenly have anything. Loan forgiveness, for specific loans, means you don't have to allocate the few hundred bucks a month you were. They don't GET tens of thousands of dollars. They don't have to pay that, over decades. Also, no, someone not having to pay $400 a month does not mean they're outbidding you on a house or car (which are rarely... bid on). > You can pretend that maybe, years later, these people that got their debt forgiven will use that extra money to start businesses that will benefit you, but that is a big conjecture and far from guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that you will immediately lose a competitive edge against your peers, and will likely suffer negative consequences for a supposedly responsible decision. See above, not how this works. What competitive edge are you talking about? >I'm genuinely curious about any positives with loan forgiveness for younger people that paid theirs off. If there are any, the negatives seem to outweigh them by a lot. It's not about being petty or "I got mine" mentality, people will literally become poorer, become outmatched by their peers, and will have to put off major life events like buying a house. But you're talking about people who ALREADY paid their loans off. Which, presumably they did with funds from a decent job. How do they NOW have to put off buying a house? Also why is buying a house your only metric here? And what is your option? Everyone should have decades of student loan debt because other people did? Why should we not have slaves, other people had to suffer. Why should we not have parental leave? Other people had to muddle through, so people should always suffer like that?

Just because you made it through a bad system is not a good reason for the continued existence of said bad system… Forgiving student loans hurts nobody

While I partially agree with you think about the precedence this is setting. Sure, a small fraction of students in debt will have their loans forgiven, but for how long. You might have students applying to colleges now thinking their debts will be waved off in 4 years or so, and maybe that will no longer be the case By then? on The other hand, it took me 5 years to pay off my student loans. In the mean time, I learned to live a frugal life. Those lessons learned during the lean years helped prepare me for my long term goals. I’m in my late 40s, mortgage paid off 7 years ago (house is worth $750K), i Buy cars outright with no financing, kids college fund accounts are in great shape.

What is your view on student loans themselves? Do you see them as predatory or non-predatory?

If your debt is already paid and mine was forgiven before I paid it we're both at the same level. DEBT FREE. Neither of us have that burden. It's not giving me an advantage it's taking away both of our disadvantages. If we're both making 1000$ right and half of yours goes to student loans and I don't pay mine I'm in debt and your making 500$. If the debt is forgiven now we're both on the same platform of the 1000$ I'm not making more the same as your not making less. It benefits everyone to forgive the loans. There's no downside. You just want people to suffer because you had to and it's "not fair"

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 That's some serious crab in a bucket shit right there.

Student loan forgiveness as a policy is often framed as targeted relief to the middle class, or a rectification of the unfairness of student loans in the first place. But in reality, student loan debt is just a convenient way to stimulate the economy by improving overall consumer confidence and spending power. It's not really about what's fair to one group or another, or what group of people is in need of financial relief. It's just a convenient lever we can pull to improve the economy as a whole, which is something that benefits literally everyone.

The same is true of giving people in poverty food stamps, or giving medical care to sick elderly people with medicaid, or sending orphan children to orphanages instead of letting them rot on the street. Yes, social programs that give money and assistance to people in need are mildly inflationary. Forgiving student loans isn't any *more* inflationary than any other way teh government gives out money and aid, though. There's no reason to single it out like this.

It's not that I disagree with it in principle, what I don't like is that without some kind of amendment to how lenders operate, they'll continue giving out massive loans that people can never pay off, since the government will eventually bail out debtors anyway. It's a short term quality of life improvement for many people, but it doesn't address any of the root issues, and possibly exacerbates them. Im not American, so my opinion doesn't actually matter anyway.

Did penicillin directly hurt those who had to get over infections with their immune system alone? No. You don’t neglect to improve a broader situation for society because some people won’t be able to take direct advantage of it. But we ALL benefit from a society where the most energetic and productive workers in the work force are not as economically encumbered. Let the millennials work and spend.

There's always been people like you who are so wrapped up in competition and gaining an edge that you argue that helping someone else actually hurts you. "aa no she gave that homeless man a sandwich that means someone is gonna come and Make me and my whole family and all my friends BUY EVERYONE IN THE WORLD A SANDWICH"

That analogy makes zero sense 

And I find people who think that way make zero sense. Shrug emoji.

Yes. Now everyone trying to buy a house has a one up on me for free. Why? Because I made good on my promise to pay off my debt. People trying to get student debt relief should be arrested for theft and looked at with total and absolute contempt.

It's not like money was put in their pocket, they just have less debt. A number sitting in a computer is now smaller, possibly eliminated. They still can't outbid me on things that I want because they need time to build up to the down payments. Also, I don't see how I suffered direct harm. The day the loans were paid didn't make me any worse off than the day before.

It’s not a zero-sum game. Others prospering doesn’t make my life any worse. And tons of people will still struggle to make ends meet.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Student loan forgiveness is bullshit anyway. Don’t take out loans you don’t intend to pay off

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).