News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

25 years old and deep in debt

Started by CountDeMoney, September 10, 2012, 10:43:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DontSayBanana

Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 10:14:05 AM
Do you have any interest in cutting off the loan spigot? The fact that virtually everyone can get loans seems like a huge driver of the insane increase in costs.

Ide's on the right track.  The reason this has gotten so ridiculous is that you've got private market pricing colliding with the state interest of getting as many people as possible through higher education.  Even if it's not a legal obligation, that the state endorses higher ed so highly means they get to charge basically whatever they want, since there's still such a stigma on not completing higher ed.

It needs to be detangled.  Either the state needs to step up and expand public schooling options while taking the private sector as much out of the equation as possible, or else the government needs to stop behaving like everyone needs a degree and let it go completely private, since complete privatization should theoretically get the prices tied to likely employment options again.
Experience bij!

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

DGuller

Education bubble isn't going to be served by restoring bankruptcy protection.  Part of the bankruptcy is that creditors have to take possession of the assets that were acquired with loaned funds.  Unless you also restore indentured servitude, that isn't going to work.  The underlying problem is that on average, going into deep debt is a good decision because return on investment is positive.  However, what works on average doesn't necessarily work on extremes.

Count

Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
Education bubble isn't going to be served by restoring bankruptcy protection.  Part of the bankruptcy is that creditors have to take possession of the assets that were acquired with loaned funds.  Unless you also restore indentured servitude, that isn't going to work.  The underlying problem is that on average, going into deep debt is a good decision because return on investment is positive.  However, what works on average doesn't necessarily work on extremes.

It depends on what the debt is for. This goes to Ide's point in terms of the legal industry- there have always been a lot of law schools that were bad investments but with the current state of the legal market it's gotten really atrocious at many schools (and still a hazardous proposition at many good schools).
I am CountDeMoney's inner child, who appears mysteriously every few years

Ideologue

Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
Education bubble isn't going to be served by restoring bankruptcy protection.  Part of the bankruptcy is that creditors have to take possession of the assets that were acquired with loaned funds.  Unless you also restore indentured servitude, that isn't going to work.  The underlying problem is that on average, going into deep debt is a good decision because return on investment is positive.  However, what works on average doesn't necessarily work on extremes.

BK restoration is only part of equation if your intention is to introduce discipline into the educational market.  If that's your goal, permitting BK to students while still federally guaranteeing any amount of money is equivalent to just up-fronting IBR, i.e. it's just as bad as the current system.

If your goal is to depressurize graduates, this changes, but that's not the issue we're discussing...
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

MadImmortalMan

The reason it was removed in the first place was that a bunch of med and law students were graduating and then immediately declaring bk to start fresh. They will still need some mechanism to prevent that.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

Count

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2012, 01:21:05 PM
The reason it was removed in the first place was that a bunch of med and law students were graduating and then immediately declaring bk to start fresh. They will still need some mechanism to prevent that.

Right, as I was saying earlier my understanding is that this was totally overblown and pretty rare. Looking for an article on that now
I am CountDeMoney's inner child, who appears mysteriously every few years

The Brain

Wouldn't the consequences of declaring bk be fairly unattractive?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2012, 01:35:14 PM
Wouldn't the consequences of declaring bk be fairly unattractive?

Guller declares BK every week, so yeah, probably.  :D
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:32:06 PM
Right, as I was saying earlier my understanding is that this was totally overblown and pretty rare. Looking for an article on that now

Assuming people are acting rationally, the cost of declaring bankruptcy should be compared to the benefits of discharging the debt.  As the debt load of graduates increases, you would expect the benefits to outweigh the costs more and more.  Losing all credit for 7 years looks very different when you're carrying $3K in student debt vs. $100K.

Also keep in mind that we are collectively the creditor in this situation.  :ph34r:

If you want to include student debt in bankruptcy that's an additional fiscal burden that you and I will end up sharing anyway.  It would be a great deal for the present age cohort of graduates, and a real stinker for everyone else.

Count

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2012, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:32:06 PM
Right, as I was saying earlier my understanding is that this was totally overblown and pretty rare. Looking for an article on that now

Assuming people are acting rationally, the cost of declaring bankruptcy should be compared to the benefits of discharging the debt.  As the debt load of graduates increases, you would expect the benefits to outweigh the costs more and more.  Losing all credit for 7 years looks very different when you're carrying $3K in student debt vs. $100K.

Also keep in mind that we are collectively the creditor in this situation.  :ph34r:

If you want to include student debt in bankruptcy that's an additional fiscal burden that you and I will end up sharing anyway.  It would be a great deal for the present age cohort of graduates, and a real stinker for everyone else.

All good points. As someone in the present age cohort of graduates, BRING BACK BANKRUPTCY
I am CountDeMoney's inner child, who appears mysteriously every few years

Darth Wagtaros

No.  Screw that. We'd see a mass bankrupting of all these jackasses with a 150 in loans looking to get out of it.  They must pay.
PDH!

Fate

Would interest rates really go below 6.8% for graduate level student loans if the whole industry was privatized? That's the argument I hear all the time from my GOPtard classmates/attendings. I was looking into Wells Fargo and they don't seem to offer anything below 7%.

HVC

If you want to make student loans dischargable then the only fair way to do that is if you do so then you lose your degree.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Ed Anger

Quote from: HVC on October 21, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
If you want to make student loans dischargable then the only fair way to do that is if you do so then you lose your degree.

Then they will become Fighter/Mages.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive