More stories

  • in

    America’s Critical Challenges Pose Serious Risks to Its Future

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    How Aging America Is Driving Consumer Inertia

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    Erdoğan’s Attempt to Woo Assad Could Go Horribly Wrong

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    The AfD’s Duplicitous Attempt to Target Germany’s National Minorities

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    Ditching the Northern Ireland Protocol is unConservative and May Break the UK

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

  • in

    Student loan forgiveness: what does it mean for the US debt crisis?

    ExplainerStudent loan forgiveness: what does it mean for the US debt crisis? The $1.7tn debt has become a hot political issues as midterm elections approachAmerica’s students have a debt problem. A big one. More than 45 million Americans – more than the population of California – now owe a collective $1.7tn in student debt.The vast majority of the money is owed to the federal government, which has been backing or directly offering student loans for higher education since 1958. While student loans are not new in the United States, the amount of student debt has more than tripled over the last 16 years.For the first time in history, the federal government will cancel a large swath of student debt to address the crisis. On Wednesday, Joe Biden announced borrowers who make less than $125,000 a year will see $10,000 shaved off their debt. Most borrowers will qualify for some cancellation. For at least 15 million, that means complete erasure of their debt.Student debt will remain a hot political issue. Understanding the impact of such a dramatic policy requires unpacking the student debt crisis, beginning with its origins.How the student debt crisis startedIn 1957 the Soviet Union successfully launching the first earth-orbiting satellite, Sputnik. With the cold war raging the federal government feared the US education system was failing to produce enough scientists and engineers to compete with the Soviets and, in 1958, started handing out student loans through the National Defense Education Act.Nearly a decade later, the Higher Education Act of 1965 allowed more people to take out loans as the federal government promised to pay back banks for any loans that were not repaid.“It all started from this choice, which I think was a terrible choice, to decide that as a policy matter we should support higher education … by giving [students] an opportunity to get a loan,” said Dalié Jimenez, professor of law and director of the Student Loan Law Initiative at the University of California at Irvine. “It was just a terrible mistake.”Starting in 2010, the federal government started directly lending money to student borrowers. In the wake of the Great Recession, the amount of student debt began to increase rapidly. Colleges were seeing increased enrollment as people left the workforce to go back to school. States slashed their higher education budgets, leading to higher tuition. More students were turning to for-profit colleges, which tend to be more expensive than public colleges.Over the last few years, the amount of grant aid, which does not need to be paid back, has risen. Yet despite this appearance of more financial support for students to attend college, the cost of attendance has remained the same.Two line charts comparing the gap between the listed price and what it actually costs to attend public and non-profit private institutions.The cost of attending public college has actually increased at a higher rate than the cost to attend a private college. The net cost of attendance for four-year public colleges, which takes into account any grants students receive, went from $17,500 in 2006 to $20,210 in 2016, according to data from College Board.Line chart of the costs of public and private non-profit increasing and then slightly decreasing from 2006-07 to 2020-21 school years.“That era 10 years ago was a really formative moment for producing a lot of debt that’s still out there,” said Kevin Miller, associate director for higher education at the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Economic Policy Project. “The cost of college attendance has gone up a lot while household incomes in the United States haven’t … there’s a real sense that if grant, state or institutional aid isn’t filling the gap, that just leaves debt as the only option.”What student debt looks like todayFor the 2021-2022 school year, the average cost of tuition and fees for a four-year public college is $10,740. The cost is nearly quadrupled for private institutions, at an average of $38,070. Even with grant aid, the cost of attendance is an average of $19,230 for public institutions and $32,720 at private schools.Estimates put the average debt of those in the class of 2019 who took out student loans at $28,950. The number is close to the maximum $31,000 that students who are dependents of parents or guardians can borrow from the federal government to fund undergraduate education.Area chart of student debt increasing from Q1 2006 to Q1 2022.Continuing racial wealth disparities are reflected in who has to take out loans to fund college. About half of Black college students take out student loans, compared with 40% of white students. Black Americans owe an average of $25,000 more in debt than their white counterparts and are more likely to be behind on their payments.Despite the amount of debt many students need to take on to attend college, nearly 20 million Americans still enroll in college every year. While earnings can depend on a person’s industry, those with a bachelor’s degrees earn 75% more in their lifetime than those with just a high school diploma.“The message is you have to get a college degree. It’s not just a rhetorical message, it’s an actual truth that if you don’t have a college degree, particularly if you are Black or brown … you will not be able to get a job that is better than your parents’,” Jimenez said.Those with graduate and professional degrees earn even more, but the price for an advanced degree is even higher. A good chunk of student debt – about 40% – is held by those who took out loans to pay for graduate school.What the government has done to address student debtAfter over a year of deliberation, the White House announced on Wednesday the largest student debt cancellation in US history. Federal borrowers making under $125,000 will see $10,000 of their debt forgiven. The policy represents a fulfillment of a promise Biden made on the campaign trail to cancel $10,000 of student debt.Until Wednesday, the most substantial policy addressing student debt was first implemented by the Trump administration, which paused student loan payments and interest accrual at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Both Trump and Biden extended the pause over the last two years, and it is now set to expire on 31 August.Since the beginning of this year, Biden has announced a slate of additional policies alongside the pause extension. Those who have defaulted or are delinquent on their federal student loans will be returned to good standing. Biden forgave $415m in student debt for borrowers who attended predatory for-profit schools.His administration also announced changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which forgives the student loans of borrowers who are non-profit and government employees after 10 years of debt or after 120 payments are made. Over 113,000 borrowers with a cumulative $6.8bn in debt are now eligible for forgiveness. Over the years, the program has been under much criticism, as relief through the program was rare and borrowers were often deemed not qualified for logistical reasons.The debate over debt forgivenessRepublicans have been using student debt as a talking point against Biden as the midterm elections approach.Senator Mitt Romney suggested that Democrats canceling student loans is a way of bribing voters. “Other bribe suggestions: Forgive auto loans? Forgive credit card debt? Forgive mortgages?” he wrote on Twitter. JD Vance (who went to Yale Law School) told the Washington Post that “Biden essentially wants blue-collar workers like truck drivers – who didn’t have the luxury of going to college to get drunk for four years – to bail out a bunch of upper-middle-class kids.”The reality is that the student loans of those in the highest income quartile – people making more than $97,000 – do make up a third of all outstanding student debt. But many low-income Americans also have student debt, though the amount of debt they have is smaller. Those making below $27,000 a year make up 17% of all borrowers, but their loans comprise 12% of all the outstanding debt.An income threshold could be a way for the government to target forgiveness to those who need it most. But some have pointed out that an income ceiling does not take into consideration a person’s wealth.“You’re looking at a snapshot of what your income was this year or last year, that tells you very little,” Jimenez said. “If your family has no wealth, you’re very differently situated from someone who has family wealth or personal wealth from previous careers.”Those who have been advocating for student debt cancellation say that $10,000 in forgiveness will not be enough to address the breadth of the crisis. Democratic lawmakers, including Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have called on Biden to cancel up to $50,000.“I don’t believe in a cutoff, especially for so many of the frontline workers who are drowning in debt and would likely be excluded from relief,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Washington Post. “Canceling $50,000 in debt is where you really make a dent in inequality and the racial gap. $10,000 isn’t.”Ending the student debt crisis for goodEven though millions will now see debt cancellation, future college students will continue to take out loans – and at higher interest rates. Tackling the price tag of college will come with its own complications, but advocates say it will be necessary to ensure student debt does not get worse.While Biden’s plan for free community college was killed along with the rest of the social and climate spending bill that was making its way through Congress, some efforts for better college funding are happening at the local level.In March, the governor of New Mexico signed a bill that would use $75m in state funds to cover tuition and fees for undergraduate students at two- and four-year colleges. Drives for similar government support have been seen in Pennsylvania, California and Maine.“The cost of college is too high for a lot of students to manage without debt. Making it so that students can go without debt or take less debt in the first place is the thing that we really need to be focusing on,” Miller said. “What about the next generation or the one after that?”
    This article was amended. An earlier version stated that student debt had doubled over 16 years. In fact, it has more than tripled.
    TopicsUS student debtUS personal financeEconomicsBiden administrationUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

  • in

    While Biden is tackling inflation and shaping a green economy for the US, Britain is being left behind | Carys Roberts

    While Biden is tackling inflation and shaping a green economy for the US, Britain is being left behindCarys RobertsThe Inflation Reduction Act is a big win for jobs and the environment, but Truss and Sunak have nothing similar to offer Over the weekend, US Democrats overcame months of political struggle to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in the Senate, marking a major victory for the president, Joe Biden, and for “Bidenomics” before the US midterms.The bill makes the single largest climate investment in US history, with $369bn for climate and clean energy. It is expected to enable the US to get two-thirds of the way towards its Paris agreement commitments while reducing energy costs. It lowers health costs for millions of Americans. It seeks to tackle inflation by directly reducing costs for individuals and by reducing the deficit through closing tax loopholes and increasing tax on corporates and the wealthy.The act is far from perfect. It is the diminished descendant of the failed Build Back Better Act, a $2tn package that would have radically extended childcare, free community college and subsidised health insurance, but which ultimately failed to secure the support of the Democrat senator Joe Manchin (a necessity given the evenly divided Senate). Winning political support for the act has required rowing back on climate ambition and more extensive plans to reduce costs for families; allowing further drilling for fossil fuels; and carve-outs to protect private equity profits from the corporation tax element of the act. For this reason, the act will and already has come under intense criticism from activists and climate groups.However, in the face of fierce political opposition it is a major – even landmark – achievement. It is also a win for the activists and economists who have been persistently pushing and providing ideas for the Biden administration to pursue an alternative approach to the economy and environment: market-shaping green industrial strategy to create good, green jobs; social investment; worker power and incentives for employers to offer decent pay, apprenticeships and profit-sharing with communities; higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce inflation and contribute to the costs, including through a new tax on share buybacks which only serve to boost investors’ incomes. These ideas are no longer stuck on the bench.Historically the US and UK have taken a shared, leading role in the intellectual development and political implementation of new ideas and policy paradigms. Whether we think about the postwar Keynesian consensus, the neoliberal revolution of Thatcher and Reagan or the third way politics of Clinton and Blair, both countries have tended to move in lockstep. Yet right now, in the context of the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and the Conservative party leadership race in the UK, our policy paths are diverging.The US has further to go than the UK when it comes to reducing climate emissions and building economic justice. The US has significantly higher levels of emissions (on an absolute and per capita basis) than the UK and the US is also the world’s biggest producer of fossil fuels. Similarly, inequality in the US is starker, and poverty deeper than in the UK. Put simply: the land of opportunity is not delivering for too many American citizens.But Democrat leaders are pushing through a bold agenda to break through deep political polarisation and reset the shape and direction of what US economic success looks like. The irony when we compare this with the UK is that the conditions are far more favourable here for action commensurate to the scale of the climate and nature crisis, an economic strategy that prioritises everyday people and places over wealth and profits, and for extending collective provision of the things and services we all rely on. We have a head start in terms of the social democracy basics. In sharp contrast to the US, there is more consensus across parties on the need for the government to take action on the climate and nature crises. Action taken now would be far less likely to be wiped away by an opposition win than the fragile progressive gains in the US.Biden can still stop Trump, and Trumpism – if he can find a bold plan and moral vision | Robert ReichRead moreThe Conservatives, who have held power for more than a decade, have in recent years flirted with some of those ideas – from May’s mission-oriented industrial strategy to Johnson’s net zero and levelling up pledges – recognising the electoral benefits of doing so. Yet at this moment, the Conservatives are plunging in the opposite direction to their US counterparts, and debating – in the middle of sharply rising inflation and a cost-of-living emergency – policies that are catnip for the Tory membership such as grammar schools and corporation tax cuts, rather than looking around the world or at the evidence on how to address the pressing problems of our time. Truss, widely seen as the frontrunner, has fallen back on outdated tropes of financial support as handouts and has virtually nothing to say on how she would achieve net zero, both for its own sake and as a response to the cost-of-living crisis. Nothing of substance is being suggested to address the creeping, real privatisation of the NHS as those who can go private rather than languish on a waiting list.It would be wrong to point at the US and claim it has its house in order or that lessons can be read in a simplistic way. But Biden and the activists and researchers around him are ambitiously forging a new kind of economic policymaking that seeks to rapidly decarbonise, reduce pressures on family purses through collective provision, and tax wealth and profits to fund this and quell inflationary pressures. The UK government – whoever it is headed by – should take note of the new economics rather than be left behind.
    Carys Roberts is executive director of the Institute for Public Policy Research
    TopicsEconomicsOpinionUS politicsJoe BidenConservativesClimate crisiscommentReuse this content More

  • in

    Saudi Arabia and Lebanon: A Tale of Two Economies

    The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More