Lockdowns

[Seanm]

I’m an older person, no one has ever asked me if I want younger people to make huge sacrifices to keep me alive, if I did, I’m not sure but I think I’d say no. Difficult to say.

The thing is the sacrifices don’t need to be as great as they are: it’s not like the only alternatives are gerontocide and keeping young people in pens. Rent relief, eviction bans, universal basic income or an increase to universal credit, new training schemes, university fees holiday to reflect the diminished nature of the online learning experience...They’re not, as far as I know, being considered. Which I guess is because class reasserts itself and shows the limits of generational solidarity: measures like that would hurt wealthy older people, who are pretty confident they can protect themselves from the virus anyway. Not only would they rather young people suffered than lose some of their rental income, they’d rather poorer members of their own generation make the ultimate sacrifice.

 

[Joe Hutch]

A huge part of the problem is that universities have only been able to expand at the rate they have expanded because of a) increased tuition fees for home students and b) a large cohort of students from the Far East paying top dollar for tuition. With the latter income stream seriously depleted, the chances of universities refunding home students a portion of their tuition fees are slim; the universities would be effectively bankrupting themselves.

Another part of the problem is that universities have historically wanted to be treated as independent from government. Massive state bail-outs to prevent institutions from going broke would effectively mean nationalisation of higher education.

 

[mandryka]

The thing is the sacrifices don’t need to be as great as they are: it’s not like the only alternatives are gerontocide and keeping young people in pens. Rent relief, eviction bans, universal basic income or an increase to universal credit, new training schemes, university fees holiday to reflect the diminished nature of the online learning experience...They’re not, as far as I know, being considered. Which I guess is because class reasserts itself and shows the limits of generational solidarity: measures like that would hurt wealthy older people, who are pretty confident they can protect themselves from the virus anyway. Not only would they rather young people suffered than lose some of their rental income, they’d rather poorer members of their own generation make the ultimate sacrifice.

First the good news

YES YES YES YES YES !!!!!!!

Now the bad news

Typical lefty (sorry, couldn't resist!)

You're shifting the focus to material relations and relations of production, when what's at stake is the extra vulnerability of the elderly to a disease, irrespective of their social class. And it's precisely that inequality -- if I'm right about where the struggle will take place -- which maybe the left will miss.

 

[Seanm]

A huge part of the problem is that universities have only been able to expand at the rate they have expanded because of a) increased tuition fees for home students and b) a large cohort of students from the Far East paying top dollar for tuition. With the latter income stream seriously depleted, the chances of universities refunding home students a portion of their tuition fees are slim; the universities would be effectively bankrupting themselves.

Another part of the problem is that universities have historically wanted to be treated as independent from government. Massive state bail-outs to prevent institutions from going broke would effectively mean nationalisation of higher education.

It’s even worse than that: AIUI it’s not just the university sector that’s so precariously positioned that 17 year olds have to be lured into private prisons to see it through a bad spell, it’s whole local economies in some university towns and, more importantly still, landlords’ profits and the delicate financial instruments that depend on them, and on which the whole rotten economy depends in its turn.

The second point doesn’t seem quite right to me though: the government’s already a big funder of HE, and until recently it was the major one. It’s not the universities’ pride that’s prevented government from putting a rescue package together: Universities UK actually requested a bailout, which the government refused. Instead it allowed them to charge full fees this year when it was clear they wouldn’t be able to provide the full product – one of the things driving this fiasco: they had to pretend they could deliver face to face teaching, or risk competitors’ snatching their marks (sorry, customers [sorry, students]).

 

[Seanm]

First the good news

YES YES YES YES YES !!!!!!!

Now the bad news

Typical lefty (sorry, couldn't resist!)

You're shifting the focus to material relations and relations of production, when what's at stake is the extra vulnerability of the elderly to a disease, irrespective of their social class. And it's precisely that inequality -- if I'm right about where the struggle will take place -- which maybe the left will miss.

It's very difficult to understand what's going on if you leave out material relations. If you look at which sectors of the economy are being protected or even doing well out of this in the UK, it's those with the most economic power: banks and landowners. The Back to the Office drive and the universities con reflect this. Meanwhile, wealthy white older people are faring much better in health terms than poorer, black people the same age.

Generational inequality is very significant, but that in large part is down to the fact that it maps onto material inequality - although not neatly, which is why the pages of the Telegraph are full of old people suggesting that a cull might actually be a good thing. They're not talking about themselves: they fully expect to be able to ride this out in their second homes, and they don't care about poorer members of the own generation any more than they do young people.

 

[Thorn]

I’m an older person, no one has ever asked me if I want younger people to make huge sacrifices to keep me alive, if I did, I’m not sure but I think I’d say no. Difficult to say.

You seem to think that it's a simple choice. It's not. It's not a nice death. I've had three friends die of it, two of them elderly, on in his forties. I was in daily contact with two of them after they went into hospital. Two or three weeks in a ventilator, feeling as if you're drowning. Realising that death is inevitable several days before you die. It's not like going to sleep.
Then there are those who recover, but remain weak for months afterwards.are you happy that people, not just older people, should suffer because others, not just younger ones, want to go to the pub or the opera?

 

[mandryka]

You seem to think that it's a simple choice. It's not. It's not a nice death. I've had three friends die of it, two of them elderly, on in his forties. I was in daily contact with two of them after they went into hospital. Two or three weeks in a ventilator, feeling as if you're drowning. Realising that death is inevitable several days before you die. It's not like going to sleep.
Then there are those who recover, but remain weak for months afterwards.are you happy that people, not just older people, should suffer because others, not just younger ones, want to go to the pub or the opera?

No I don't think it's a simple choice, on the contrary, I was hoping that was clear from what I said. But I think that it's a debate that may well come out into the open, and I'm just not at all sure what I feel about the questions myself.

Then there are those who recover, but remain weak for months afterwards.are you happy that people, not just older people, should suffer because others, not just younger ones, want to go to the pub or the opera?

I think this comment masks the enormity of the issue. We're talking about people leading productive lives, flourishing, having human contact, doing the things they love doing. When you say "pub and opera" you trivialise it, but it's not trivial.

 

[mandryka]

It's very difficult to understand what's going on if you leave out material relations. If you look at which sectors of the economy are being protected or even doing well out of this in the UK, it's those with the most economic power: banks and landowners. The Back to the Office drive and the universities con reflect this. Meanwhile, wealthy white older people are faring much better in health terms than poorer, black people the same age.

Generational inequality is very significant, but that in large part is down to the fact that it maps onto material inequality - although not neatly, which is why the pages of the Telegraph are full of old people suggesting that a cull might actually be a good thing. They're not talking about themselves: they fully expect to be able to ride this out in their second homes, and they don't care about poorer members of the own generation any more than they do young people.

I just don't know Sean, I just don't know. I ned to think some more.

 

[Joe Hutch]

The second point doesn’t seem quite right to me though: the government’s already a big funder of HE, and until recently it was the major one. It’s not the universities’ pride that’s prevented government from putting a rescue package together: Universities UK actually requested a bailout, which the government refused. Instead it allowed them to charge full fees this year when it was clear they wouldn’t be able to provide the full product – one of the things driving this fiasco: they had to pretend they could deliver face to face teaching, or risk competitors’ snatching their marks (sorry, customers [sorry, students]).

Universities want to have it both ways; to be independent from government whilst at the same time being dependent on the government for survival. The shift from block grants via funding councils (theoretically arms-length bodies) to income from students as the main source of funding was only going to work as long as that income kept flowing.

Several institutions were already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy even before COVID; the killer punch for many, if not most HEIs will be the loss of income from overseas students paying full-whack for tuition.

All this is in addition to the Ponzi-type nature of student loans, with ever-decreasing numbers of graduates reaching the level of salary at which repayments kick in (and many loans will have to be written-off after 25 years).

 

[Bob McC]

All student loans from before 2012 are written off after 25 years.
All subsequent ones after 30 years.
It is estimated that over 80% will be written off.

 

[stevec67]

What's the salary threshold at which grads have to start paying back? Grads are starting on about £22k outside London in my industry. Maybe 25 if they are lucky. I thought you paid back at not much more than 20?

Obviously the 80% figure will include large numbers who pay some back over the loan period, the amount left over will obviously vary.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Depends. For those taking out loans post-2012, the threshold is approx. £26,500 per annum. If you're lucky enough to secure a 'graduate' job, that would probably be your salary after a couple of years. But many graduates have to take lower-paid, part-time work, and won't reach that level for several years. Some will go in for postgrad study, keeping their earnings level low during that period.

 

[Ponty]

All student loans from before 2012 are written off after 25 years.
All subsequent ones after 30 years.
It is estimated that over 80% will be written off.

Crazy. Presumably this is why the interest rate is about 6% (?), the very high default rate means it should be much higher. It’s taxpayer money being written off after all! The old 80/20 rule strikes again.

 

[Bob McC]

It is only that for 9% of earnings over the threshold of £26575.
Pre 2012 loans pay a current interest rate of 1.75% on an income threshold of just over £19000.

and what do you mean by default rate?

 

[Bob McC]

What's the salary threshold at which grads have to start paying back? Grads are starting on about £22k outside London in my industry. Maybe 25 if they are lucky. I thought you paid back at not much more than 20?

Obviously the 80% figure will include large numbers who pay some back over the loan period, the amount left over will obviously vary.

£26575 for post 2012 loans.
Less than 50% of student loans are currently having a penny paid back.
This is due to people not working, or earning under the threshold, or clearing off abroad and not paying.

 

[Ponty]

It is only that for 9% of earnings over the threshold of £26575.
Pre 2012 loans pay a current interest rate of 1.75% on an income threshold of just over £19000.

and what do you mean by default rate?

Crikey, what a mess. By default rate, I refer to the estimation than over 80% would be written off. That makes Wonga look like a blue chip lender and look what happened to them!

 

[Bob McC]

It’s Barmey.
Indeed as Martin Lewis says calling it a loan was stupid.
It should have been called a student tax whereby you pay 9% above a certain threshold for X years for your university education because that is in effect what it is.
The govt can’t even sell the latest tranche of student loans to private companies no matter how they try because of these figures.
I’m convinced it would cost less to the exchequer to just abandon the student loans system, all the required infrastructure, the student loans company, the cost of chasing non payers and just go back to free Higher education.

 

[Ponty]

I’d have absolutely no issue with that, but no degrees on surfing, for example, and back to sensible numbers attending.

 

[gintonic]

It should have been called a student tax whereby you pay 9% above a certain threshold for X years for your university education because that is in effect what it is.

indeed.....too many politicians scared to use the word "tax" (apart from in the context of a reduction)

 

[wacko]

I’d have absolutely no issue with that, but no degrees on surfing, for example, and back to sensible numbers attending.

OK but then also some controls on University salary costs...
The present system of loans which get written off means there is no incentive to control costs.