Socialists advocating that the middle and working class subsidize the upper class

From Think Tank Study Shows Democrats Fixing College Loan Crisis That Doesn’t Exist by Mark Tapscott. The original study is Issues 2020: Millennials Aren’t Drowning in Student Debt by Beth Akers.

Neither the article or research are completely compelling in dismissing the student debt crisis. The effort is flawed owing to averaging by category. But it does put some parameters around an otherwise squishy topic. From the article:

“Sixty-six percent of millennials have no student debt at all. That’s because they haven’t gone to college or because they managed to get through without having to borrow,” Akers wrote.

“Those who do have debt tend to have modest burdens relative to their income. Typical four-year-degree graduates who borrow will accumulate $28,500 in debt over the course of their enrollment,” she said.

According to Akers’s calculation, the $28,500 can be repaid at a monthly cost of less $200, which represents only 4 percent of the average monthly earnings for such individuals.

The biggest chunks of the current college loan debt are held by higher-income people with graduate level and professional degrees, Akers pointed out.

“The largest loan balances are held by people who pursued graduate or professional degrees. Fortunately, this group also benefits from higher earnings,” Akers wrote.

[snip]

Contrary to what might be expected, the Manhattan Institute scholar wrote, students from higher-income families tend to take on greater debt because they attend more expensive schools and remain in class longer.

“In 2015–16, students from households in the highest income quartile (those with incomes above $120,000) borrowed about $10,500 more than students from households in the lowest income quartile (those with incomes below $30,000) in pursuit of undergraduate degrees,” according to Akers.

Useful information here.

66% are not affected because they do not have any debt.

Average debt is $28,500.

The highest debts are accumulated by students with higher income degrees.

The article goes into all sorts of safety nets that exist. What is missing is a clear articulation of the number of students who seek degrees, accrue debt, and do not complete the degree; the number of students who pursue degrees at a debt level greater than the degree is worth in the market; the number of instances where parental retirement savings are depleted from co-signing such debts.

I think the truth is that there are a lot more problems than Akers is acknowledging but also that the problems are far different, and probably smaller, than is being made out to be the case by flighty politicians.

The striking thing that comes across is what has been known all along - 1) Federal student loans are a subsidy to an already wealthy and protected sector (education) and 2) Debt loads are a subsidy to the already upper-middle class pursuing masters and doctorates.

In other words our two most avid socialist politicians (Warren and Sanders) are the most vocal in their support of a program which favors and subsidizes the already financially privileged at the expense of medium and low income earners.