If I pay for your college education and you pay for mine, we're right back where we started in a zero sum game. Or, were you saying that other Americans owe you money, but you owe them nothing?
A highly educated workforce sustains more productivity which means more revenue for government which means more $ for higher education. Producing college graduates doesn't just benefit the person, it benefits society.
Your finite binary thought process only benefit those who start off wealthy.
Some of us go without. It used to be much easier to get through school (by that I mean logistically). These days I wonder if the debt incurred by going to school is even worth it.
I think this day will come soon. In the same way that housing prices simply outpaced real wages, so too are education costs. If college costs increase at say 7% a year (im making up numbers) and wages dont keep pace (they arent), there's likely to be a breaking point.
Originally Posted by FDG
Not exactly true because you don't have to pass through loan agencies, there are no interest rates, etc. etc. so the burden is much lower.
True. There is also the time value way to look at it. If the money comes from your parents (or other parents who pay taxes), the money is at the "end" of its growth equation (the widest part of the fan). If you pay yourself up front (just pretend the loan was paid up front), that money is at the narrow part of the fan and represents a lot more money in future value (as in, if your money went to your savings, rather than to pay for college).
Originally Posted by Chunes
Besides, it's not zero-sum. The money supply grows slightly more slowly than debt.
I didn't write the article, the Wall Street Journal did. I thought it held some interesting information that might help people who are looking at student loans avoid problems with good planning. Are you saying that the WSJ article is factually incorrect; if so, what are you basing that on?