I used to believe your line of reasoning, but I don't anymore.
> It was a moral hazard of a bad policy intended to make college accessible but in turn caused massive tuition inflation.
Do you really think that's unsolvable? That "bad policy" is corruption. That tuition inflation could be capped.
> Again if there are higher costs, someone has to pay them.
You would think we would all want to educate, insure, and support the next generation. Maybe some costs should be shared?
> They instead just had adverse effects due to the moral hazard of incentivizing colleges to raise tuition since the government will back the loan and the student doesn't understand how to make an informed decision on cost tradeoffs at their age. But this isn't the system being designed to prevent people from having children.
I know you're saying this unironically, but please consider that a system which allows an 18 year old to sign up to accrue tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of debt over 4+ years with no guarantee that they will be able to pay it back... well, maybe that's just not a system we should have built. You know who would love to build that system? Probably the recipients of the 18 year old's borrowed funds.
I have friends that are engineers in various fields, college educated, career people, and they're still struggling to save much of anything after childcare expenses and paying down their college debts.
It's no problem though, they just have to keep working and it's all fine. Unless they can't work for some reason, then they've got a big problem.
"career people, and they're still struggling to save much of anything after childcare expenses"
That just isn't going to work. It can't. By law in most places, the ratio of childcare workers to children is limited. The work simply doesn't scale. Suppose the ratio is 1:4, and there is a 100% markup on the wages to pay for stuff like the building. Sending 4 kids will thus cost the pay of two workers. Dividing down, just 2 kids will cost as much as the typical parent might earn.
> It was a moral hazard of a bad policy intended to make college accessible but in turn caused massive tuition inflation.
Do you really think that's unsolvable? That "bad policy" is corruption. That tuition inflation could be capped.
> Again if there are higher costs, someone has to pay them.
You would think we would all want to educate, insure, and support the next generation. Maybe some costs should be shared?
> They instead just had adverse effects due to the moral hazard of incentivizing colleges to raise tuition since the government will back the loan and the student doesn't understand how to make an informed decision on cost tradeoffs at their age. But this isn't the system being designed to prevent people from having children.
I know you're saying this unironically, but please consider that a system which allows an 18 year old to sign up to accrue tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of debt over 4+ years with no guarantee that they will be able to pay it back... well, maybe that's just not a system we should have built. You know who would love to build that system? Probably the recipients of the 18 year old's borrowed funds.
I have friends that are engineers in various fields, college educated, career people, and they're still struggling to save much of anything after childcare expenses and paying down their college debts.
It's no problem though, they just have to keep working and it's all fine. Unless they can't work for some reason, then they've got a big problem.