There is a popular conservative motto which is repeated over and over again recently:
"education is the next bubble, people have already said. Financing college is the new real estate, and we know how that works out."It has been repeated so frequently that there seem to be a need to address it
(
Read more... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Don't get me wrong, college debt certainly is a problem, especially for people in their 20s, it's just not a bubble. I'm also not aware of much speculation going on around education debt. It's usually pretty crappy debt with low returns, not something like .com stocks in 2000 or real estate in 2007 that are the subject of irrational exhuberance. If you can point to a huge amount of speculation around college debt, I'd certainly like to see it.
Education might be a bit overpriced in some instances, but the return on most degrees at most colleges is higher than the cost.
Reply
Reply
Of course they did not. Are you kidding? They instigated It. It is the higher prices that lead to people over-consuming both stock and real estate. People were buying second and third house only to "flip" them and turn the profit! And with zero income and zero downpayment. Why? Because banks were sure the rising prices will make it profitable even in the case of foreclosure.
If prices did not grow so fast no one would by so many houses or so much stock. But even cautious people lost their mind because there was so much short term profit. People were thinking "oh, I agree that there is a bubble and it may burst eventually, but before it does I can turn 100 000 dollars profit! Worth the risk!"
I do not think you can use the same logic with education
Reply
Reply
I missed the word "not", read the corrected version.
Reply
The point is that education debt, like any debt instrument, is an interest-bearing asset. The ability of the borrowers to repay the interest is fundamental. Whether or not the debt is over trinkets or prestige, the instrument exists and produces activity, investment and value.
Reply
If that's not the case, calling it a speculative bubble (or comparing it to speculative bubbles) is a misleading metaphor.
Debt instruments indeed aided and abetted the housing speculation bubble of the mid 2000's, but it was the housing prices which were bubbling in value, not the debt instruments.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Wow, twice as low. That's deep. And you didn't have to repeat it. It has no bearing on the argument. Whether it's twice as low or half as high, some people, not you, evidently, have trouble paying back their student loans on the salary that the market gives them.
Reply
It means that the problem is not that too many people are getting degrees, but that degrees cost too much.
So the solution should be not to cut off people from college, but to make education cheaper, better yet- free.
Direct bearing on the argument for you.
Reply
1) There was no demand for homeowners, only for homes, driven by homeowners themselves. (there is demand for degree-bearers (college graduates), which is shown by low unemployment I quote, and not just for the degrees themselves.
2)Demand for degree-bearers (college grads) is independent from the price, since it is employers who need them, and employers do not care about the cost of the degree, so they do not need more degree-bearers just because the price of the degree went up - THEY DON'T CARE. They need more because they have a need for skilled well educated labor)
3) When house market prices went up buyers were actually happy - they were making more profit on the homes they bought! Compare to the college students - how can they be happy? Some of them actually have to drop out when prices go up ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment