来源：《洛杉矶时报》
原文刊登日期：2020年12月21日
The staggering student loan debt in US — estimated to be around $1.6 trillion — stymies much of its young population. Many borrowers are putting off having families because they can’t afford the expense of raising children. Nor are they buying houses or cars, which would boost the economy.
美国惊人的学生贷款债务——估计约为1.6万亿美元——阻碍了许多年轻人的发展。许多借款人推迟组建家庭，因为他们负担不起抚养孩子的费用。他们也不买房买车，买房买车能提振经济。
This has led some advocates to call for forgiving the debt, with Joe Biden vowing during his campaign to forgive up to $10,000 for each borrower. More Democrats are fighting for up to $50,000.
这导致一些支持者呼吁免除债务，乔·拜登在竞选期间曾发誓，将为每个借款人免除至多1万美元的债务。更多的民主党人正在争取免除5万美元。
That would be hugely expensive, though; forgiving up to $50,000 would cost about $1 trillion. A disproportionate amount of that relief would go to higher-wage earners, who are more likely to attend college, especially private college. And the money would help only this crop of debtors.
不过，这将非常昂贵；如果减免5万美元，将花费大约1万亿美元。这一救济的数额将不成比例地流向高收入者，他们更有可能上大学，尤其是私立大学。而这笔钱只会帮助这批债务人。
There are many ways of providing relief to borrowers, but across-the-board forgiveness would be the least equitable and least cost-effective. Instead, the government should help the neediest graduates, those who lost their incomes during the pandemic and those who took steps to keep their debt low by attending public colleges and working through their college years.
向借款人提供救济的方式有很多，但全面免除将是最不公平、最不具成本效益的。相反，政府应该帮助最贫困的毕业生，那些在疫情期间失去收入的人，以及那些通过上公立大学和在大学期间工作来保持低债务的人。
Blanket forgiveness would be particularly problematic at a time when so many families are facing far bigger financial challenges than not being able to buy a house or car. The pandemic has left millions wondering where their next meal is coming from and how to keep a roof over their heads.
在如此多的家庭面临着远比无法买房或买车更大的经济挑战之际，全面免除尤其成问题。疫情让数百万人想知道他们的下一顿饭从哪里来，以及如何才能有个栖身之所。
Proponents of debt forgiveness say it would boost the economy if borrowers could spend their income on other items. Forecasts on whether the country would gain more than it spends, however, are mixed. The other argument is that higher education is a public good, so its cost should be borne by the society that benefits from a well-educated population. That could well be true, but in that case, what’s needed is an attack on the cause of student debt, not the symptoms: It costs more to deliver a college education in US than almost anywhere else in the world.
债务减免的支持者表示，如果借款人能够将收入用于其他项目，将提振经济。然而，这给国家带来的收益是否会大于支出，人们的预测好坏参半。另一种观点认为高等教育是一种公共产品，因此其成本应由受益于受过良好教育的人口的社会承担。这很可能是真的，但在这种情况下，我们需要的是打击学生债务的原因，而不是症状：在美国，接受大学教育的价格几乎比世界上任何地方都要高。
Many nations in Europe can offer free or very low-cost college education because they not only provide more public support, but also control costs. Students in Europe are far more likely than Americans to live at home and commute to school; class sizes are much larger, and sports teams far fewer.
许多欧洲国家可以提供免费或低价格的大学教育，因为这些国家不仅提供更多的公共支持，而且还控制成本。欧洲的学生比美国学生更有可能住在家里，通勤上学；班级规模大得多，运动队少得多。
Loan forgiveness also raises issues of inherent fairness. The people who acted in especially prudent ways — for example, by attending lower-cost schools and limiting their borrowing — are the ones who would end up getting little or no help.
贷款减免还引发了固有的公平性问题。那些行事特别谨慎的人——例如，通过上低花费学校和限制借贷——最终只能得到很少或根本得不到帮助。
Of course, there are low-income students for whom no amount of thrift would make it possible to get through college without a loan — and these are the people who most need help. They can’t afford living expenses or a few thousand dollars a year for college. That’s why need-based relief, rather than broad loan forgiveness, is both prudent and warranted.
当然，对于低收入家庭的学生来说，再节俭也不可能在不贷款的情况下读完大学，而他们正是最需要帮助的人。他们负担不起生活费或每年几千美元的大学学费。这就是为什么基于需求的救济，而不是广泛的贷款减免，是既谨慎又必要的。
Again, forgiving student debt is a short-term fix. Ultimately, the answer lies in preventing crushing debt at first.
同样，减免学生债务只是短期解决办法。最终，答案在于从一开始就避免沉重的债务负担。