On Monday night, the first presidential debate took place. Many things were said, including the dubious claims that Donald Trump is not “braggadocious,” that the entirety of the economic recovery is due to a “big, fat, ugly bubble” and that the Democratic National Convention could have been hacked by “somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds.” Yet amid all this, very little mention was made of what arguably matters most: college and student debt. Not one of the moderator questions dealt with student debt. Instead they chose to dedicate a full ten minutes of time to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. As important as this subject is, that is unacceptable.
The economy predictably took up the largest portion of the debate time, demonstrating just how important the country’s economic health is to the candidates and to the American people. It is a logical conclusion for student debt to be a major part of presidential debates.
Hillary Clinton mentioned college a grand total of two times: once in her opening statement and then in the heart of the debate. She said that making college debt-free and helping people refinance their debt from college at a lower rate are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy.
However, Clinton seemed downright attentive to college issues compared to Trump, who did not mention college or student debt a single time during the debate.
Considering Americans owe nearly $1.3 trillion in student loan debt – four times more than in 2004 – spread over 43 million borrowers, not including college affordability in the debate is an egregious omission. The American Student Assistance published a 70-page study on the effect of student loans on the consumption habits of young Americans. Thirty-five percent of respondents to ASA’s survey said they found it difficult to buy daily necessities, 52 percent said their debt affected their ability to make larger purchases such as a car, 62 percent said they have put off saving for retirement or other investments and 55 percent indicated that student loan debt affected their decision or ability to purchase a home.
Those effects on the economy are far-reaching, stifling consumption of daily necessities, cars, and homes – and therefore the entire demand side of the economy. First-time home buyers are massive economy stimulators. When someone buys a house for the first time, they create a chain reaction of economic activity from mover truck rentals to appliance consumption to family creation. Furthermore, without this baseline first-time demand, you slow down the ability of established homeowners to sell and trade up, therefore bogging down the entire housing market.
Student loans also have a substantial impact on the supply side of the economy, with a 2000-2010 study by the Social Science Research Network finding that with every standard deviation increase in student debt, there is a 14 percent decrease in the formation of businesses with fewer than five employees. Sixty percent of jobs are created by small business – therefore the large negative impact on the overall economy is easy to see. On top of that, student debtors tend to choose employment in well-paid professions with low public interest like investment banking, instead of low-paid, high public interest jobs like teaching, which students might have chosen were they not burdened with debt.
Finally, student debt worsens economic inequality, which is already at its worst level ever. Student debt exemplifies a particularly American aspect of economic inequality: the inequality in access to higher education. In other countries in the developed world, student debt isn’t as massive because you have more public support toward students and higher education. The lack of these types of policies have slowly made universities, especially top universities, the exclusive territory of the economic elite. One statistic is particularly frightening, if you look at the average income of the parents of Harvard undergraduates, you get the average top-one percent of family income in the U.S.: $450,000. If left unattended, the consequences of this inequality would lead to a vicious cycle in which the poor are barred from premier institutions and social mobility is limited.
Clinton has amended her previous college affordability plan, mostly thanks to pressure from Bernie Sanders and his supporters, and it now includes a measure to make public college tuition-free for families earning less than $125,000 by 2021. Furthermore, she wants to give debtors the ability to refinance their loans and for their debts to be forgiven after 20 years.
And to her credit, the issue of college affordability has been included on her website, which is a step up from Trump, who is as silent on student loans on his website and the campaign trail as he was in the debate.
However, posting information on candidates’ websites is insufficient. Voters may not look at candidate websites, and the televised debates are a major source of political information for them. The massive influence student debt has on the future of the economic health of this country, both its vitality and equality, means that if the topic continues to be ignored during the debates, many voters will remain unaware of a key policy debate and a major difference between the two candidates.
Having the candidates speak live about college affordability gives the topic the legitimacy it deserves and pushes them to display true understanding of the nuances of economic policy. Ultimately, 43 million people are directly affected by student debt, and they deserve to have their issues discussed on the presidential debate stage.