Yes, but when going to college a lot of college employees got paid using that money. Current students paying money to the college is stimulating the economy, while former students paying the debt off is shrinking the economy.
> Current students paying money to the college is stimulating the economy
Ehh, it's stimulating the higher education economy.
And even that's debatable depending on how that influx of money gets spent: Paying 100 extra student workers $10/hr isn't really stimulating the economy since most of that money's going right back to the college.
Plus, it's not smart to put all of your stimulus eggs in one market basket, ya know?
The salaries of professors, lecturers, college employees, construction workers, etc. go to rents, food, other necessities. That money doesn't go back to the college, but rather to the general area these people live in and spend their money in.
Most professors don't earn that much money[1], unfortunately.
> college employees, construction workers,
Why do you think it's going to them? For reference, the average salary of a construction worker hasn't changed that much in the past decade [2].
I posit that the majority of that money is going to higher education administrative costs, and so the "stimulus" is occurring entirely in higher education. Stimulus entirely in one class and market of employment worries me for the inevitable market correction (for what seems like an unsustainable path, i.e. the current state of higher education costs). It also comes at the expense of a diverse service economy: It would be extremely shortsighted to support living in a world where higher ed and student loan companies are the thriving sources of the economy.
[EDIT] I removed an argument about "trickle-down" because it felt forced.
