Economists Say Forgiving Student Debt (Warren's/Bernie's Plans) Would Boost the Fuck Out of the Economy

[Chris-]

Show me one politician who wants to abolish student debt who doesn't also want to help the middle class in some fashion (whether that is lower taxes, stronger labor rights, stronger safety nets, or some combination therein). If Bernie Sanders got on stage and said, 'Let's pay off all the liberal arts degrees, and also fuck those guys working at Burger King' then mayyyyyybe I would be sympathetic to the notion that the working/middle class isn't being properly considered, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single candidate that is doing that.

[legend]

I don't think Dodger's position is all that terribly unreasonable. I think the salient issue being raised is doing a complete loan forgiveness is prioritization of the middle class, potentially at the cost of the working class. I think the argument that needs to be made is that the loan forgiveness won't leave behind the people who need it the most.

 

Even if loan forgiveness ends up being a net positive in the long term, the short term has a more limited budget. Maybe it still works out and we can simultaneously help out the working class, but I do think it's worth considering and I don't think it's a given that we can do both in the short term.

[Dodger]

7 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Man Dodger is pretty stupid. Like, why are we even arguing with him. His view is "if we reward people who need it, then it's betraying people who didn't need help." That mentally applied to most things is an extreme Libertarian point of view and leads to societal collapse. Just ignore Dodger, he ignores replies that mage cogent points in favour of replying to ones he can shitpost to.

 

I understand I'm a mere moron who can't comprehend the extent of your mental might since you are just so much smarter than me, but try to understand that replying to multiple people who disagree with you gets really time consuming and it's easier just to hit certain salient points then every little point that gets brought up. Since you naturally have all of the correct opinions, I'll be sure to follow your posts more carefully as I don't want to dare believe any differently than you, because if I do I'm obviously both wrong, and stupid. 

 

I even said I'm not necessarily against student loan forgiveness, or at least some form of it. I'm sorry I pointed out that this isn't "fair" to millions of people. If you think student loan forgiveness is a great idea, I never called anyone a moron or stupid for believing it. But maybe you are just a shitty person. 

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

If you didn't go to college because you wanted to about debt that's fine, and you should now be able to do so. And also those people who did go and went into debt should be released from it. You can't wind the clock back but you can move forward.

[Dodger]

9 minutes ago, legend said:

I don't think Dodger's position is all that terribly unreasonable. I think the salient issue being raised is doing a complete loan forgiveness is prioritization of the middle class, potentially at the cost of the working class. I think the argument that needs to be made is that the loan forgiveness won't leave behind the people who need it the most.

 

Even if loan forgiveness ends up being a net positive in the long term, the short term has a more limited budget. Maybe it still works out and we can simultaneously help out the working class, but I do think it's worth considering and I don't think it's a given that we can do both in the short term.

 

 

It seems that the main point of this is, if we save millions of people several hundred dollars a month, they will then be free to spend that money elsewhere, which will stimulate the middle class and the economy. My simple point is that there are lots of ways we can save people several hundred dollars of month. If the goal is to save people several hundred a month, how about we come up with a plan that helps everyone save several hundred dollars a month instead of the people who made the "correct" choice of going to college on student loans. Because if the middle class who went to college with student loan debt could use several hundred dollars a month to decide to have children or buy a house or just go out and buy the new iphone every year, the people who didn't go to college and don't have student loan debt could probably use that money too to do the same things. 

[SaysWho?]

I would give Dodger a little slack on that. On this board, it doesn't happen to me much, but on a couple others, I'm sometimes talking with 7 different people, and there's just no way I'm responding to everyone. I don't think he's debating in bad faith here.

  

18 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Show me one politician who wants to abolish student debt who doesn't also want to help the middle class in some fashion (whether that is lower taxes, stronger labor rights, stronger safety nets, or some combination therein). If Bernie Sanders got on stage and said, 'Let's pay off all the liberal arts degrees, and also fuck those guys working at Burger King' then mayyyyyybe I would be sympathetic to the notion that the working/middle class isn't being properly considered, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single candidate that is doing that.

 

Exactly. Typically, the candidates proposing solutions like this are proposing many policies to help poor and middle-income people.

[Massdriver]

I don't believe we can raise the money Sanders wants to with taxation, so each decision made should be done carefully to help as many people as possible with the limited resources we have. Bernie's debt forgiveness would cost 1.6 trillion dollars. I would rather all of that money be converted to wage subsides and cash transfers for the middle class and poor. Cash transfers will help the economy too.

 

 Healthcare is where our next president should focus their political capital first when it comes to financial insecurity. 

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

 

 

There are people literally wearing diapers to go to work in some Amazon warehouse because Amazon won't even give them a piss break  and it would be "delicious" to see them upset?

This is quite possibly the dumbest, most ridiculous thing i've ever heard when speaking against student loan forgiveness. 

[Dodger]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

This is quite possibly the dumbest, most ridiculous thing i've ever heard when speaking against student loan forgiveness. 

 

 

Ok Apoc. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I have an idea. Let's end the forever wars (~$70 billion annually) and cut the defense budget 15% (~$90 billion annually) to pay for student loan forgiveness

[Dodger]

I'm about to get out of work and then I gotta get ready for the holiday at home so I'll just make my last point, and if you disagree with it, hey that's cool that's what this place is for. 

 

We've demonstrated on this very board that people who go to college, especially those who graduate college make more money than those who do not. So if you have student loan debt, you are still getting the benefit of the increased incomes college degrees bring over those who never went to college. With student loan forgiveness you now get a double benefit, not only are you making more money than those who didn't go to college, you don't have to pay for some/most/all of your education. So now you're even further ahead of those who never went to college. As Massdriver points out, student loan forgiveness is expensive. Guns vs butter and all of that. 

 

Now maybe you don't care how "fair" this is and think it's just one tool to boost the middle class. That's great. I simply feel we should work on solutions that help everyone below a certain income level and not give a privileged few an extra benefit. I feel student loan forgiveness is double punishing those who never went to college. But if you don't feel that way I see your point, and at the end of the day, I ain't even mad. I'm just trying to see it from another angle. 

 

Plus there is that whole people respond to incentives thing, and what do we do with all the people currently in college or about to go college. They are going to want their free ride too. Maybe we should move towards "free" public advanced schooling, but that's another discussion for another day. 

[Dodger]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I have an idea. Let's end the forever wars (~$70 billion annually) and cut the defense budget 15% (~$90 billion annually) to pay for student loan forgiveness

 

Except that still doesn't pay for student loan forgiveness (over a trillion dollars for either plan, 1.6 trillion for Bernies)

[stepee]

“Ok apoc” should be the “ok boomer” for people in their late 30’s that pretend to own lumber yards.

[Chris-]

4 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I'm about to get out of work and then I gotta get ready for the holiday at home so I'll just make my last point, and if you disagree with it, hey that's cool that's what this place is for. 

 

We've demonstrated on this very board that people who go to college, especially those who graduate college make more money than those who do not. So if you have student loan debt, you are still getting the benefit of the increased incomes college degrees bring over those who never went to college. With student loan forgiveness you now get a double benefit, not only are you making more money than those who didn't go to college, you don't have to pay for some/most/all of your education. So now you're even further ahead of those who never went to college. As Massdriver points out, student loan forgiveness is expensive. Guns vs butter and all of that. 

 

Now maybe you don't care how "fair" this is and think it's just one tool to boost the middle class. That's great. I simply feel we should work on solutions that help everyone below a certain income level and not give a privileged few an extra benefit. I feel student loan forgiveness is double punishing those who never went to college. But if you don't feel that way I see your point, and at the end of the day, I ain't even mad. I'm just trying to see it from another angle. 

 

Plus there is that whole people respond to incentives thing, and what do we do with all the people currently in college or about to go college. They are going to want their free ride too. Maybe we should move towards "free" public advanced schooling, but that's another discussion for another day. 

 

I hear you, but there is another detail you are neglecting: any debt forgiveness plan worth its weight is being paired with a tuition-free model going forward. I find it hard to see the two, taken in conjunction, as any form of gate keeping.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

16 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

Except that still doesn't pay for student loan forgiveness (over a trillion dollars for either plan, 1.6 trillion for Bernies)

Hi 160 billion times ten equals..........

 

(In case you haven't noticed everything is framed in ten year dollar amounts to scare people)

[Massdriver]

Bernie Sanders campaigning 

 

Reactions:

[cusideabelincoln]

Even 0% interest would be amazing.

[Guest]

I’m not sold on blanket student loan forgiveness as an ethical practice. But I generally would like to see meaningful steps toward making college more affordable. 
 

I also wish I could tap into some of the $25,000 in personal property tax money I’ve given to the local ISD since my kids have been school age that we have never sent our kids to. Books and supplies are expensive!

[Scott]

I'm with Dodger on this one.

 

I can't tell if several of you are simply responding to your own personal history with him, rather than the actual points he's making, or if this board has really truly jumped off the liberal deep end. 

  

8 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

"Hmm, now that we have a cure for cancer, should we really give it to people who chose to smoke, especially the ones who needed to smoke in order to get jobs like being a doctor and engineer, which our society requires to function? How would people feel who were responsible and chose not to smoke? It wouldn't be fair to them. So for that reason I am hesitant to say we should cure lung cancer."

 

That is how you sound, you bitter old man.

This is a bad comparison. It's not that we never had the cure for the student debt problem. The US Government always could have backed up a dump truck full of cash on borrowers, at any point in history - the question is whether or not this is the most expedient use of federal funds. Freeing up disposable income will always lead to economic stimulation. "It'll boost the economy!" is a weak argument. And I think most people here are fine with a cash infusion or a tax relief of some sort from the government. But could we do it to benefit the lower and middle classes broadly, rather than specifically targeting those who took out shitty loans?

7 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

It doesn't affect me at all that others are forgiven because it helps everybody -- it stimulates the economy, it allows me to do things with friends of mine who are saddled with debt, and it's also part of many proposals by the progressives candidates to stimulate the middle class. 

 

We need to move past this idea of, "This helps Person A, which is unfair to Person B." No, the goal shouldn't be that we leave people suffering because we want them to suffer with us. 

It's not a matter of misery loving company, or being competitive with your neighbor. Dropping a billion dollars in my account wouldn't hurt you, and I'd damn sure stimulate the economy, but I don't think that's the best plan for everyone. I think there are better tweaks that can be made to the system, that will benefit a larger base of people, rather than picking winners and losers by selectively rewarding irresponsible borrowing behavior. Also, zooming out a bit, I think it sets a bad precedent. What foundational aspects of our society will we just wipe away with a magic wand in a few years? Should I even be saving for retirement, or will an increasingly progressive political candidate just drop a couple million dollars from God-knows-where in everyone's bank account in 30 years?

7 hours ago, Jose said:

Honestly, if those people are petty enough to get mad over it, it will be delicious to see them get upset.

This is pretty gross. Someone is "petty" if they were responsible enough to avoid crippling debt and are now working a tedious factory job? Seeing them upset when the federal government pulls a deus ex machina and waives away all the debt they structured their entire lives to avoid... would be delicious??

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I don’t really have a strong opinion on canceling debt. I paid mine almost a decade ago and it wouldn’t affect me. 
 

I do think the whole system needs to be revamped, as others have said. Shit, just cancel the interest and that would help people a ton. Imagine paying on your loans for years and not having made a dent in the initial loan amount because of the interest. Also, not everyone needs to waste tens and hundreds of thousands on dollars on a four year university degree. 

[johnny]

Cancel the debt. Give everybody healthcare. Stop hating people so much. 

[Keyser_Soze]

I went to school on scholarships, grants and financial aid so no complaints from me 

[SaysWho?]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

It's not a matter of misery loving company, or being competitive with your neighbor. Dropping a billion dollars in my account wouldn't hurt you, and I'd damn sure stimulate the economy, but I don't think that's the best plan for everyone. I think there are better tweaks that can be made to the system, that will benefit a larger base of people, rather than picking winners and losers by selectively rewarding irresponsible borrowing behavior. Also, zooming out a bit, I think it sets a bad precedent. What foundational aspects of our society will we just wipe away with a magic wand in a few years? Should I even be saving for retirement, or will an increasingly progressive political candidate just drop a couple million dollars from God-knows-where in everyone's bank account in 30 years?

 

First, it certainly is about misery loving company. 100%. It's why a significant minority of people oppose raising the minimum wage. "Why do they deserve $15 an hour and I don't?" "Why can an addict get access to this but this non-addict can't?" The argument should always be, "Why am I not also being paid more?" "Why am I getting stiffed by these rich cats?"  Until we get away from the former, it will always, always, always be about misery loving company.

 

Putting that aside, the problem with this argument is that it's full of hypotheticals that can be applied to everything. Should we even do Medicare, or will we eventually have to give it to everyone? Should we allow interracial people to get married, or will that eventually lead to gay marriage and polygamy? Should we do unpaid leave, or will that lead to parental leave? 

 

It also assumes someone in debt was irresponsible by default. We're in a society where we tell people to go to college -- and much of this came from a generation who didn't -- and tell people just to look for a bunch of scholarships. We offer few affordable ways to pay off student debt, and few ways to save enough that you won't accrue debt. 

 

Let's also get away from the idea that thinking debt should be eliminated is some kind of deep end. The deep end is opposition to it:

 

Quote

The survey found that 58 percent of registered voters said they would support a proposal that would make public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free. The same group also said they would back a plan eliminating all existing student debt.

 

Quote

Seventy-two percent of Democratic voters said they are in favor of making higher education tuition-free and eliminating student debt, compared to 40 percent of Republicans. Fifty-eight percent of independents, meanwhile, said the same.

 

[Anathema-]

Free higher education is in everyone's benefit.  We don't have to worry about how to pay for every cent, this is a program that will actually pay for itself.

 

Shit, without huge loans to pay back maybe doctors won't balk at reducing the cost of healthcare. Maybe you could get a cheaper lawyer. Maybe the only thing standing between you and a better career is dedication and time. 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm with Dodger on this one.

 

I can't tell if several of you are simply responding to your own personal history with him, rather than the actual points he's making, or if this board has really truly jumped off the liberal deep end. 

  

This is a bad comparison. It's not that we never had the cure for the student debt problem. The US Government always could have backed up a dump truck full of cash on borrowers, at any point in history - the question is whether or not this is the most expedient use of federal funds. Freeing up disposable income will always lead to economic stimulation. "It'll boost the economy!" is a weak argument. And I think most people here are fine with a cash infusion or a tax relief of some sort from the government. But could we do it to benefit the lower and middle classes broadly, rather than specifically targeting those who took out shitty loans?

It's not a matter of misery loving company, or being competitive with your neighbor. Dropping a billion dollars in my account wouldn't hurt you, and I'd damn sure stimulate the economy, but I don't think that's the best plan for everyone. I think there are better tweaks that can be made to the system, that will benefit a larger base of people, rather than picking winners and losers by selectively rewarding irresponsible borrowing behavior. Also, zooming out a bit, I think it sets a bad precedent. What foundational aspects of our society will we just wipe away with a magic wand in a few years? Should I even be saving for retirement, or will an increasingly progressive political candidate just drop a couple million dollars from God-knows-where in everyone's bank account in 30 years?

This is pretty gross. Someone is "petty" if they were responsible enough to avoid crippling debt and are now working a tedious factory job? Seeing them upset when the federal government pulls a deus ex machina and waives away all the debt they structured their entire lives to avoid... would be delicious??

Reducing the amount of debt overhead that diverts spending from goods and services into debt payment *would* benefit the lower and middle classes broadly--the only people who wouldn't necessarily benefit would be an already extremely wealthy and powerful creditor overclass.

 

But it goes further than that--it also benefits the country's competitiveness internationally.  This is not only because the middle class' spending is the working class' income--and vice versa--but because the increasing amount of rent extracted from the middle- and working class' income in the form of debt payments to the creditor class increases the overall cost structure of the economy by increasing the cost of labor (without generating any countervailing forces to weaken the national currency).  With the cost of student debt payments being slowly built into the 'break-even' wage, companies can't price labor in a way that allows the country's exports to undersell its competitors on the international market--in other words, the nation as a whole loses.

 

It's not just about 'stimulus'; it's about helping to restore a mutually beneficial (if inevitably transitory) state of equilibrium to the economy as a whole, from which it can begin to grow in a broad-based way.  This is so because the most basic destabilizing factor in every economy in history is the growth in debt beyond the ability of society's collective ability to pay.  When this is allowed to occur without any kind of 'reset' or 're-equilibration', societies inevitably polarize between creditors and debtors, and are beset by increasingly severe crises.

 

While the specific historical circumstances are slightly different, this isn't some new, whacky policy.  Repeated debt jubilees were what allowed the economies of the ancient bronze age societies in Sumer and Babylonia to continue functioning without a collapse for thousands of years; the same went for ancient Greece and Rome.  Indeed, it was part of what laid the foundation for Western civilization.  (you'll note that the Judaic tribes adopted the Babylonian notion of the 'clean slate'--hence why the jubilee year appears in Leviticus, and why the Hebrew word duror is a cognate to the Babylonian word for 'clean slate', andurarum--and that Christ essentially presented the proposition of debt cancellation as a necessity when he confronted the 'moneychangers in the temple' and in so doing more or less popularized Christianity among the laity)

 

Contrast that to what happened when, due to the power of vested interests, the Western Roman empire stopped its practice of the jubilee year around the 4th century.  Within the span of 100 years it polarized between creditors and debtors and collapsed into feudalism.  Meanwhile, the Eastern Empire, which kept the practice, survived and thrived and eventually ended up surpassing the West militarily and technologically.

 

I'll agree that a student debt jubilee ought to be paired with policies to reduce the cost of higher education--but to say it only benefits those who took out student loans, and is a disbenefit to those who did not, is wrong.  A less debt-ridden economy benefits all classes--save, again, for the creditor overclass that is already obscenely well off--and helps re-stabilize and re-equilibrate society so that it can grow in a more stable and broad-based way that lifts all ships.

[Kal-El814]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

Also, zooming out a bit, I think it sets a bad precedent. What foundational aspects of our society will we just wipe away with a magic wand in a few years? Should I even be saving for retirement, or will an increasingly progressive political candidate just drop a couple million dollars from God-knows-where in everyone's bank account in 30 years?

 

Why would a hypothetical government windfall 30 years from now affect your retirement planning strategy today? Is this an honest question?

 

Foundational aspects of our society change all the time. Again, are you asking this seriously?

 

[legend]

9 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Imagine paying on your loans for years and not having made a dent in the initial loan amount because of the interest.

 

I "only" had 40k of debt when I left grad school for my post doc, and this is exactly how I felt with even that level of debt. It felt like I was making no progress even though I was paying it. When I left my post doc and starting making much better money, the first thing I did was pay off the entire debt in 1 year, because fuck that shit.

 

I can only imagine how painful it is for someone with even more and who isn't entering a high-paying sector in the near future. The feeling of not making progress even though you're dumping money into it is seriously demoralizing. I'm all on board on at least knee capping the interest rates to inflation or nothing.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Imagine thinking that those with student loan debt aren't middle or working class, or come from middle or working class families. Seriously, who do you think has to take out student loans?

 

 

The fact of the matter is student loan debt is a deliberate policy decision. The ballooning cost of higher education being brunt by those getting an education is a result of several deliberate policy decisions (unlimited loans, unfunded mandates, and decreased state spending on higher education being the primary drivers). The interest rate being paid by borrowers is set by legislation. The nondischargable nature of student loans in bankruptcy is also a deliberate policy. Capping the student loan interest deduction is a legislative choice. Having a byzantine regime of loan repayment servicing companies is a policy decision. Making loan forgiveness (for, say, public service) contingent on a broken administrative state is another decision. 

 

At an even bigger level, we've created an economy where in the medium to long term going to college pays off on average compared those with an associate's degree or less, no matter the bachelor's degree concentration (especially when you consider the drop in real incomes of these groups of those without higher education). In the short term, those with student debt delay or don't start businesses, buy homes, get married and have families, and have other goodies, like reduced wealth. This hurts the entire economy, and further advantages those who come from means and finish college with no debt. To say nothing of those who are unable to finish college for a myriad of reasons and end up worse than those who never went to college at all!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Also it should not be lost on anyone that black borrowers are more likely to borrow, they will borrow more than whites from similar income and wealth backgrounds, among other issues

[Bloodporne]

 

I have no idea what's going on 

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Why would a hypothetical government windfall 30 years from now affect your retirement planning strategy today? Is this an honest question?

 

Foundational aspects of our society change all the time. Again, are you asking this seriously?

 

Are YOU seriously asking this?

 

If I thought a politician would give me $2M in 30 years I wouldn’t save at nearly the rate I am currently. I’d save enough to cover emergencies and whatnot in the intervening years, but no way would I save at my current rate. 
 

And of course our society changes. The citizenry has to decide how best to change it. And I’m a No vote on massive forgiveness for student loans. Sorry you got duped on the promise of higher education or picked a low-earning career track. I don’t think the rest of the tax payers need to selectively bail out these individuals. I’d rather stimulate the economy through other means. But I absolutely believe in making big changes to the way in which the loans are granted, as well as the runaway costs of education. 
 

As others have asked, why not forgive all mortgage debt? I feel it would have the same positive effects as outlined by SM.

[Ghost_MH]

Hey, I am the hypothetical person that twisted my life around no college. I even dropped out after a year and a half because I couldn't afford it and needed to get a second job to help my parents make ends meet. I would LOVE to see student debt canceled here. Unlike a mortgage or car debt, this is a huge amount of debt teenagers were convinced to take on. I'm not some selfish asshole that would be bitter that I lost on some opportunity that others will now have. Hell, I have three kids under 4 and college savings accounts I've already created for each of them that I've thrown money in. If you told me that all that money saved is wasted in a 529, I still wouldn't care.

 

As for canceling mortgage debt, I would have been fine with that when the banks were bailed out back in 2008.

[Joe]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Hey, I am the hypothetical person that twisted my life around no college. I even dropped out after a year and a half because I couldn't afford it and needed to get a second job to help my parents make ends meet. I would LOVE to see student debt canceled here. Unlike a mortgage or car debt, this is a huge amount of debt teenagers were convinced to take on I'm not some selfish asshole that would be bitter that I lost on some opportunity that others will not have. Hell, I have three kids under 4 and college savings accounts I've already created for each of them that I've thrown money in. If you told me that all that money saved is wasted in a 529, I still wouldn't care.

 

As for canceling mortgage debt, I would have been fine with that when the banks were bailed out back in 2008.

 

Bailing out banks and large corporations is totally cool, but bailing out individual people? Fuck 'em.

[Kal-El814]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Are YOU seriously asking this?

 

If I thought a politician would give me $2M in 30 years I wouldn’t save at nearly the rate I am currently. I’d save enough to cover emergencies and whatnot in the intervening years, but no way would I save at my current rate. 
 

And of course our society changes. The citizenry has to decide how best to change it. And I’m a No vote on massive forgiveness for student loans. Sorry you got duped on the promise of higher education or picked a low-earning career track. I don’t think the rest of the tax payers need to selectively bail out these individuals. I’d rather stimulate the economy through other means. But I absolutely believe in making big changes to the way in which the loans are granted, as well as the runaway costs of education. 
 

As others have asked, why not forgive all mortgage debt? I feel it would have the same positive effects as outlined by SM.

Any meaningful retirement planning accounts for current laws / regulations. Mine accounts for social security existing, who the hell knows if that will still be there 20 years from now. If at some point in the future, there IS legislation passed to give everyone $2M (where you got these numbers I have no idea), of course my retirement plan would change.

 

But in the meantime it’s not going to change off the possibility that kind of stimulus WILL happen, which makes the question absurd.

 

I know laws around this have changed recently, but we HAVE given relief to mortgage holders via interest deductions. Trump dunked that from $1M to $750K, but still. Other programs have existed as well.

[CitizenVectron]

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

As others have asked, why not forgive all mortgage debt? I feel it would have the same positive effects as outlined by SM.

 

This is easy - Because universal education furthers society, while owning more (detached) homes actually hurts society. It is better for society to have us more densely packed into cities, which means more rental units and less detached single-family homes. It is not only better for the climate crisis, it is better for us economically (costs far more to create and maintain suburbs) and also culturally (people who live in cities are more accepting and open, less authoritarian on the order-open index).

 

Instead of subsidizing home ownership we should be actively dissuading it in favour of high-rises (which can of course be either rentals or condos/stratas, etc).