Proposals like $200 pharma gift cards & $50k student loan forgiveness are consequences of a political system that rewards politically expediency rather than addressing structural problems. These ideas not only perpetuate poorly designed systems but propagate them. 1/
Resource allocation has tradeoffs, even if they’re not explicit. With seemingly no constraints on deficits now, there is an illusion of no tradeoffs. The result is policymaking that, in using band-aids, weakens public demand (and hence political will) for needed reforms. 2/
The issues around student loan forgiveness are best summarized by @justinwolfers as “Worst. Idea. Ever.” So why is it even being considered? Giveaways are easy; fixing systems is hard. 3/ freakonomics.com/2011/09/19/for…
It’s politically difficult to make a policy in which an influential group feels harmed. With no fiscal constraints, there’s no reason for a politician to make a hard decision. This makes federal policymaking sloppy as it’s easier to just keep the interest groups happy. 4/
It’s politically expedient to give away $200 gift cards rather than reform a broken drug pricing system. It’s politically expedient to forgive student loans rather than create real higher-ed accountability that will improve student outcomes. 5/
The answer to growing unaffordability of higher-ed and healthcare is not more subsidies. Subsidies just increase costs even more. Econ prof @ATabarrok writes in jest about the long-term effect: 6/
We @Arnold_Ventures have worked for years trying to improve these systems. We target the root cause of the problems, trying to get structural solutions to improve value through (1) increased access (2) improved quality (3) lower total cost (including gov't expenditures). 7/
But its lonely work. There are a 100 advocates for “more” to every 1 for “better”. Individuals and gov't together spend so much money on these systems already. We can get better results for that money. We must. But the interest groups don’t like the solutions. 8/
It’s hard to argue against band-aids. People like the relief. Industry likes more revenue. But these systems need real reform because they waste 100s of billions of taxpayer & consumer dollars better spent elsewhere and, more importantly, these systems are hurting people. 9/
People have stagnant paychecks because of healthcare inflation. People don’t fill needed prescriptions because drugs cost twice as much in the US relative to our economic peers. Society gets incremental, me-too drugs because that’s what the system rewards. 10/
Students waste their Pell Grants & time on colleges with 6 year grad rates of 10%. Students are left with debt they can’t repay because predatory colleges spend more $ on marketing than instruction, leaving students (even if they graduate) without skills valued by employers. 11/
Of course, the health care and higher-ed industries hate reforms. The current system works well for them, even if it’s lousy for consumers. These industries are well-organized and politically connected, so passing anything without their blessing is hard. 12/
So politicians recoil. They know the problems with these systems. They know what should be done. But rather than working on real fixes, they default to addressing short-term out-of-pocket costs that makes the structural problems worse. 13/
Here’s what policymakers could do instead:
- Create consumer protections to stop predatory practices
- Provide students relief when defrauded or school closure
- Strengthen accountability measures through gainful employment rule, 90/10 rule, & risk sharing 14/
- Improve data transparency so students & regulators have better info on outcomes
- Scale interventions that increase student success (like ASAP)
- Support experimentation with non-traditional models that decrease costs
- Fix accreditation
- Improve state level oversight 15/
We have to start addressing the root causes of problems rather than the symptoms. The unintended consequence of gift cards and loan forgiveness is that the problem only gets worse. Future generations inherit our debt and a system that will only be harder to fix. 16/16
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, elections can see-saw back and forth each cycle but every congressional Dem in a competitive seat in 2022 has to be terrified right now. This will translate into a more moderate agenda regardless of who controls the Senate. 1/
It's clear the Dem platform/messaging is not translating well beyond the coasts. If Dems want to expand the map, they need leadership, punditry, and media that comes from outside the Northeast Megalopolis/California. 2/
The theory in “Coming Apart” by @charlesmurray that the fictionalized, elite “Belmont” is in such a bubble that it has lost touch with the white, working-class “Fishtown” is illustrated every day the NYT publishes multiple op-eds denigrating every Republican (48% of country). 3/
Distressed companies become stronger after flushing their debt through bankruptcy, allowing them to regain competitiveness & make investments for future. It's incredibly valuable tool, though one largely unavailable to states, cities & public agencies like transit authorities. 1/
The prohibition on bankruptcy is not a feature; it’s a bug that condemns jurisdictions and agencies to a permanent state of limbo. They struggle just to service their existing debt, built up during more prosperous times or while politicians were financially profligate. 2/
The current & future generations that depend on these services are the victims. Entities get caught in vicious cycle of having to raise taxes/fees while cutting services. The result is population declines, economic stagnation, and lower usership. 3/
Newspapers have been in a decline since 2005 but this year marks another leg down. As newspapers close or get cut to the bone, public accountability of local institutions declines. The watchdog role that newspapers play will be lost without models subsidized by philanthropy. 1/
With a hedge fund being the high bidder in the bankruptcy auction of McClatchy Company (publisher of 30 papers including Miami, KC, Sacramento, Charlotte) this week, financial players now control almost 45% of total newspaper circulation. This isn’t going to get better. 2/
Accountability is a public good, which are usually subsidized with govt money. But local, state, or fed govts directly funding its overseer creates a risk on editorial independence. This market failure results in a shortage of oversight and, thus, worse societal outcomes. 3/
I have very different interpretation about merit aid to wealthy families than this article. Rather than discounting list price tuition to wealthy, well-qualified students, my theory is list price includes mandatory “donation” for students on the bubble. nytimes.com/2020/06/16/opi…
Rather than thinking of the list price as the base and colleges applying discounts, it’s more descriptive to think of the actual cost of education as the base and then consider whose price gets marked up (wealthy students either int'l or on the bubble academically). 2/13
This is relevant to the colleges outside of the top tier with 10 or 11 figure endowments with need blind admissions. Most colleges must balance merit with ability to pay in selecting the incoming class. To do so, they price discriminate via merit and financial aid. 3/13
Many good proposals to improve policing policies have been offered over the past week that should be enacted. But material change is harder than just changing laws or words in the employee handbook. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” is true in most orgs, including PDs. 1/8
The #8cantwait campaign claims that enacting the slate of reforms “can decrease police violence by 72% (versus having none of these policies).” I'm skeptical it's this easy. Enacting policies without culture change is helpful but limited. 2/8
After Laquan McDonald shooting, the DOJ sent a team in to investigate the Chicago PD. A member of that team later told me Chicago had better policies than his last department. The problem wasn't the policies; it was that officers weren’t following the policies on the streets. 3/8
This crisis has revealed demand by small but material # of students for a hybrid model of school that isn’t 7 hours * 180 days in-school attendance but isn’t homeschooling either, that relies partly on tech but has live teachers for daily oversight & that creates a community. 1/5
It's time to rethink the blended models that have existed for years with mediocre success. Perhaps (1) these models work well only for a subset of kids (2) they’re hard for teachers (3) too much reliance on digital (4) some students work better outside of the school building. 2/5
Online only, especially if prerecorded, is hard even for motivated adults. Live classes suffer from quality consistency and stimulating kids at varying levels. A new model must optimally integrate teachers and tech while balancing time at school and independent work at home. 3/5