The word that comes to mind is that they feel "entitled".Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
The word that comes to mind is that they feel "entitled".
There you go again...sigh... Do you really really believe the government, our government, WANTS people on welfare, in debt and standing on the street corner hat in hand? Honestly? To what end or purpose would they (we) WANT that? Could it just maybe possibly be that the government started backing student loans because they simply wanted to make a college education available for all? Does it always always have to be some nefarious, evil plot by THE GOVERNMENT to enslave us? Good intentions gone wrong are still, at their core, good intentions. And I think, by and large, students are paying back their debt. And government backed loans has opened up higher education to so many who would otherwise not have it available, just as medicaid/medicare have helped thousands (millions) who would have never had access to health care of any kind without it. The fact that a very small percentage may abuse this doesn't change the fact that it has done overwhelming good.
Strong jobs market isn't all the story though. Too many jobs with very average or even below average salaries too often require higher degrees to an almost ridiculous level. My daughter, for instance, had flirted with the idea of being a librarian, until she found out you needed a MASTERS to do this! A masters! to be a librarian. I'm not dissing librarians, mind you, but here is something you could learn all you possibly needed to know in a 2 year degree, much less a masters. And there are so many other career paths like this. Not pie in the sky career paths, but everyday career paths that really shouldn't be so out of reach.
Education, at least some, beyond grade 12 is becoming a necessity if you want to do anything beyond basic service type jobs
Well peggy, yes, I actually do believe there are people in the government that see significant benefits to be had from keeping large blocks of people in a dependent state. The only thing that amazes me is that you don't. And I do not believe it is a case of good intentions gone wrong, but rather a plan that works exactly as its intended. There isn't much room to debate that welfare does not work improving the lot of those who 'qualify'. They are on a check to check treadmill that is very difficult to get off of. That has now gone on for decades. You could not design a more effective method of keeping a segment of the population under your control if you tried. If it wasn't intentional how do you explain that there's never been anything beyond dog and pony election year efforts to change it? How do you explain that makes no difference which party is in control?
But that isn't a strong jobs market, is it? At least its not in my own definition of one. The requirements get so out of kilter because there are more and more people competing for fewer and fewer jobs. If there were more jobs than candidates (aka a very strong jobs market) your daughter would likely be finding requirements for positions more in line with what most of us would consider reasonable. The fact that positions are so often being filled with such highly qualified candidates is an indication of how long this has been going on.
Peggy according to USnews and World report http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...dent-loan-debt
"the report estimates that 21 percent of the total student loan debt burden in the U.S. is delinquent, and that more than one-in-four of the 37 million student loan borrowers represented in the Equifax data have past due balances."
If this is true then something is way out of balance like the housing market is.
Such a conundrum.
With a contracting economy and jobs still being exported at a furious pace, there are fewer jobs to be had.
College-aged kids take out loans to attempt to gain degrees so they can compete in this increasingly competitive job market (where Ph.D.'s are taking telemarketing jobs)
Upon graduation, they find that they still can't find jobs that pay them enough to pay off the debt they took on.
It's terribly frustrating. I don't agree that debt absolution is the answer, but I wonder what is? I'm still an optimist, and believe there's an answer if we ask the right questions.
One exists - it's called joining the US Military :-)! 4 years of service equals money for a college education. I think the same could be a pathway to earning citizenship or writing off current student loan debts - 4 years of service earns US citizenship. 4 years of service equals 4 years of write offs of student loan debts.
Like others here who have been "triple foolish" (no student loan debt because I DID join the armed forces, paid off mortgage by making MAJOR financial and personal sacrifices but didn't sell while housing prices were high, didn't use my house or credit cards as a bank to buy luxury items) I completely disagree with a mass student loan debt write offs. Re-structure? Definetely. Make it a low percent of "total" (not discretionary) income and a low interest? Definetely. Take into consideration certain financial hardships to certain people to put re-payment on hold for a limited period of time? Sure. But that loan should stay in all cases (except death when it should not have to be paid by the heirs). I don't think it should be a bankruptable thing. Too much potential for most people to claim BK once out of college. And while it doesn't seem fair that consumers should get to declare BK and keep many of their assets, I personally think many of us disagree with the current BK rules that allows people to keep many/all of their assets - including the luxury ones. I think that anytime someone claims BK that many of those assets should be seized and sold for debt repayment when they can be. The cars, the RVs, boats, and toys, the business, even the house should not be considered "safe" assts that one can retain in BK. BK to me is something that should be used only for extreme and dire financial situations that are out of the persons control - medical issues, natural disasters which wipe out a home, etc... Not to allow people to retain the things they bought (including an education) when there are other ways to fund those things - including getting second jobs.
Although I would never blame anyone (Zoebird et al) for taking advantage of a student loan reduction or elimination program if one was offered. Just like I would take advantage of the free-to-all $50,000 another poster suggested. I'd be the first in line for that :-)! But yes, like Iris Lily, it does tick me off to no end that such programs will exist by the goobermint. If the banks want to do it, fine. But I would rather fund a "work to education" program with taxpayer dollars rather than just give it all away. Even a "volunteer work to pay of student loan debt "program. Basicly give people an avenue/incentive to relieve that debt but make them work for it in some fashion if they need debt relief. Not really fair to all those service members working and living in extreme conditions everyday so that they can afford college.
Last edited by Spartana; 3-21-12 at 3:09pm.
it provides perhaps enough of a safety net to prevent revolutionThere isn't much room to debate that welfare does not work improving the lot of those who 'qualify'. They are on a check to check treadmill that is very difficult to get off of. That has now gone on for decades. You could not design a more effective method of keeping a segment of the population under your control if you tried.maybe that and prisons?
I don't know, which came first the chicken or the egg? I've always figured that pushing more and more people to go to college came first. That ok if 90% of the population has high school diplomas say then what are they worth as a sorting/signaling mechanism? And suppose purely hypothetically that we had a great education system everywhere where those high school grads were coming out really well educated. Still if 90% of the population has a high school diploma it is still a useless sorting mechanism. And it really is the same principle with a Bachelors and so on. If everyone had PhDs, PhDs would be cleaning tiolets, and I don't see any kind of economic prosperity that would prevent that in such a situation. True the middle class may have used to be larger (manufacturing, unionization etc. etc.) - but the whole idea of everyone as a white collar professional is ridiculous. And not even because some people are lesser or anything (maybe, maybe not, it's immaterial really), but because there's not that much demand for white collar work in ANY economy.But that isn't a strong jobs market, is it? At least its not in my own definition of one. The requirements get so out of kilter because there are more and more people competing for fewer and fewer jobs. If there were more jobs than candidates (aka a very strong jobs market) your daughter would likely be finding requirements for positions more in line with what most of us would consider reasonable.
The need for more and more advanced degrees to do anything (masters for a librarian etc.) is a HEAVY TRANSACTION COST. That's what it is. It prevents people from better sorting themselves into careers that might suit them more just because it is a heavy transaction cost (it interferes with market flow if you will ...). Even if you have determined your highest career desire in life is to be a librarian, you might think twice about the masters ... Ok that's the cost, what is the benefit or who benefits? It protects certain fields from competition, that's the benefit, the benefit is barriers to entry. The benefit was for a long time to establish a middle class that can hold itself above the lesser working class rabble. But as more and more people pursue more and more degrees it breaks down, pretty soon you need to hold a PhD to avoid working retail. What if .... we have been SOLD (by politicians mostly) education INSTEAD OF a good society? Instead of a society where everyone benefits we have been sold "if only you get an education you can be one of the lucky ones that benefits". And then when it fails, you hear complaints like "but I did everything right ...." (because they were sold "if only you do everything right, you can be one of the lucky ones").
Trees don't grow on money
I think just barely enough, which I also think is the goal. Give too much and the people will rise above. Give too little and they will revolt. The perfect level keeps them lined up with hands out waiting for the next installment.it provides perhaps enough of a safety net to prevent revolution
DW and I have been talking a lot about this lately. We have 2 kids through college and 1 still in high school. We pushed the older kids into college just like all our friends did. For DD it was a good thing. She met people, had a great experience and then landed a good job in her field. Just like its supposed to work. DS took 8 years to get through, spent as much on partying as tuition and now has 2 jobs neither of which is in his field.
DW is pushing DD2 straight at college. She wants to take an 18 month cosmetology course. I can VERY easily see her doing something like opening her own shop someday (she's expressed interest already) or charting some other less than traditional course. She is more like me; I didn't go to college for a variety of reasons, but beyond the social aspects it would not have done me any good in my early 20's anyway. I do have a hunch that pushing her into college right out of HS is going to be a waste of her time and our money. Maybe we change up the rules.
What if we didn't let anyone into college before age 22. They could pull a hitch in the military or they could perform all the thankless, low paying tasks that unskilled, uneducated workers get to do. Either way they would learn some respect for others, some dicipline and some appreciation for what people do. Once they have their 4 years of life in then they would be free to study what they really want to learn. That, and maybe we cap student loans at 50% of the cost of school (or whatever figure you want) to keep balances lower at the end of a 4 year degree.
Typically speaking, creditors 'eat' the debts that are discharged which are counterbalanced in tax write-offs.
In the case of this bill, the government would likely pay pennies on the dollar and/or be discharged -- and that money would come from the war funds. I'd much rather spend it here than on war funding.
The whole point of discharging a debt is to avoid debtors prison, indentured servitude, and slavery.
What this situation sets up -- when people have no means of discharging the debt legally -- is indentured servitude in essence.
This is not a question of character, it's a question of justice (avoiding issues of indentured servitude, slavery, and debtors prisons).
I did that thankless low paying type of work during high school and college.
Some kids are made to go to college and some aren't, but I don't need the govt telling my children they can't go to college until they are a certain age or that they have to go at all. Nothing wrong with the military or trade school, but kids need to find their own path without govt intrusion.
Capping loans at $x dollar amount for undergrad degrees, however, might be a step in the right direction in helping to controll the out of control college costs. In related news, one of our local colleges is helping their waterski team buy a $40,000 boat. Wonder why the cost of college is increasing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote