Student loans

The young have always been more optimistic than the old, but this is no longer the case, at least according to the Michigan consumer sentiment survey:

But as Jeremy often points out here, young adults have actually been doing pretty well at building wealth. So why are they so gloomy?

Since I’ve now aged out of the young adult category, I’m obligated to start by wondering if kids these days are just whinier, and need to quit doomscrolling and toughen up. But if I try to see things their way, here’s what I can come up with for why their pessimism could be rational:

It’s About The Future: Sure things have been fine, but that is about to change. The more farsighted youth know they will be the ones expected to pay back the big deficits the Federal government is running. They have student loans to pay today now that payments have fully resumed. I predicted after the 2022 student loan forgiveness that we would be back to all-time highs in student debt by 2028, but in fact we are there already. The youth unemployment rate is now 10.5%, up from 6.6% in April 2023, and could rise a lot more if AI really starts displacing jobs:

*Source: Brynjolfsson, Chandar and Chen 2025.*

2. It’s About Housing: House prices are at all time highs (far above the prices during the 2000s “bubble”). Mortgage rates remain high, and to the extent that Fed rate cuts push them down, they will likely push prices higher, leaving homes hard to afford. High credit standards post-Dodd-Frank mean younger buyers in particular find it hard to get a mortgage; homeownership rates are falling while the average age of homeowners shoots upward. Most older people already own a house, while most young people want to buy but see that as increasingly out of reach.

*Good luck getting a mortgage without super-prime credit*

*Everyone thinks it’s a bad time to buy a house, but this matters most if you’re young and don’t already own one*

*The median American is 39 years old but the median homebuyer is 56*

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is proposing to cut off student loans for programs whose graduates earn less than the median high school graduate. The House proposed a risk-sharing model where colleges would partly pay back the federal government when their students fail to pay back loans themselves. Both the House and Senate propose to cap how much students can borrow for graduate loans. Both would reduce federal spending on higher ed by about $30-$35 billion per year, cutting the size of the $700 billion higher ed sector by 4-5%. I expected that something like this would happen eventually, especially after the student loan forgiveness proposals of 2022:

While we aren’t getting real reform now, I do think forgiveness makes it more likely that we’ll see reform in the next few years. What could that look like?

The Department of Education should raise its standards and stop offering loans to programs with high default rates or bad student outcomes. This should include not just fly-by-night colleges, but sketchy masters degree programs at prestigious schools.

Colleges should also share responsibility when they consistently saddle students with debt but don’t actually improve students’ prospects enough to be able to pay it back. Economists have put a lot of thought into how to do this in a manner that doesn’t penalize colleges simply for trying to teach less-prepared students.

I’d bet that some reform along these lines happens in the 2020’s, just like the bank bailouts of 2008 led to the Dodd-Frank reform of 2010 to try to prevent future bailouts. The big question is, will this be a pragmatic bipartisan reform to curb the worst offenders, or a Republican effort to substantially reduce the amount of money flowing to a higher ed sector they increasingly dislike?

Of course, there is a lot riding on the details. How exactly do you calculate the income of graduates of a program compared to high school grads? The Senate proposal explains their approach starting on page 58. They want to compare the median income of working students 4 years after leaving their program (whether they graduated or dropped out, but exempting those in grad school) to the median income of those with only a high school diploma who are age 25-34, working, and not in school.

Nationally I calculate that this would make for a floor of $31,000. That is, the median student who is 4 years out from your program and is working should be earning at least $31k. In practice the bill would implement a different number for each state. This seems like a low bar in general, though you could certainly quibble with it. For instance, those 4 years out from a program may be closer to age 25 than age 34, but income typically rises with age during those years. If you compare them to 26 year old high school grads, the national bar would be just $28k.

What sorts of programs have graduates making less than $31k per year?

Continue reading →