But then also there's got to be a huge number of, maybe not that huge, but a larger number of people who didn't go to school at all because it was expensive.

And they're kind of in the worst position of anyone who was affected by the fact that college costs money.

And so you probably should compensate them as well.

And when you get into that logic, you just say, hey, write a check to everyone

under the age of 50. Just take the money, divide it evenly between everyone under the age of 50.

If you went to public school, here you go. If you went to private school and then tell us it was

because public school costs money, okay, whatever, here's a check. And if you didn't go at all,

and you say, oh, it's because it was too expensive. Here's a check, too.

Everyone gets money, you know. So I don't think that this sort of accurately represents the

arbitrariness of the welfare calculation embodied in these debt cancellation plans. I think there is a

meaningful distinction between people who currently have student debt outstanding and people who

don't from welfare terms. Namely that not having

student debt is a sign that you are relatively privileged because it means that you went through

higher education without having to take on debt and that probably means that your parents or

family supported you through it. Not having student debt outstanding because you paid it off

is also a relative sign of privilege. And if you look at the progress toward repayment of

successive student debt cohorts, what you see is that more privileged people pay off their debt

sort of as they're quote unquote supposed to over 10 year time horizon because they tend to get

better jobs with better wages and can kind of do what they're told. Having student debt outstanding

is a sign that you're

relatively unprivileged in comparison to those two groups. And so it's not an arbitrary

delineation of people. I mean, extending the cancellation plan in the direction of people who

...