Today's retard that we're all supposed to feel sorry for

[Infohawk]

I stand by my general lack of sympathy for someone who makes abysmally bad choices.

Generally, when people talk about "bad choices" they mean things like getting into gambling debt or doing something illegal. This guy hasn't been unethical or broken any laws. He's now homeless. I feel bad for him. Doesn't mean I think the government should forgive his loan altogether, but he's not like someone who tried to get rich quick by robbing a bank or committing fraud.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Generally, when people talk about "bad choices" they mean things like getting into gambling debt or doing something illegal. This guy hasn't been unethical or broken any laws. He's now homeless. I feel bad for him. Doesn't mean I think the government should forgive his loan altogether, but he's not like someone who tried to get rich quick by robbing a bank or committing fraud.

Fair enough.

 

[jackstar7]

Generally, when people talk about "bad choices" they mean things like getting into gambling debt or doing something illegal. This guy hasn't been unethical or broken any laws. He's now homeless. I feel bad for him. Doesn't mean I think the government should forgive his loan altogether, but he's not like someone who tried to get rich quick by robbing a bank or committing fraud.

Fair enough.

You saw it here first, folks. Someone presented a reasonable point in a respectful tone and someone else respectfully responded.

I feel like this should make an internet highlight reel.


I will say, it is not easy to get by in the world with a crap credit rating. This guy's life isn't getting any easier regardless of the debt.

 

[silverpig]

How then are you going to protect the lender when the 18 through 23 year old takes on lots of debt, can't pay it off (or, won't pay it off), and then goes, Hey, I can get out of all this debt by just declaring BK! ?

They won't have any real assets, they're already years away from having to buy a house/condo, so taking the credit hit is not going to be a big deal, especially in light of their circumstances.

How will the lender be protected?

You let the lender protect itself by not issuing the loan in the first place. No one forces them to give away money.

 

[silverpig]

Irrelevant. Pretty much all US student loans go through the federal government now. The private lenders have already bailed.

It's the same here. My first year of student loans (2000) had me get a loan from a bank that was backed by the government. After that, it was all government, although there were separate provincial and federal loans. The province and feds talked to each other to figure out how much they would give you, but it was separate.

Now I just got a notice that it's all going federal and everything is consolidated.

But still, there's no $50k chef programs here.

 

[fskimospy]

Colleges are not as free as you think. Once a student is accepted and can pay a colleges can (and are) sued if they deny them. My wife has a student who proved completely inadequate and they can't get rid of er.

Did you reply to the right person? I don't think colleges are free at all. Other than my statement that for profit colleges are a scam I didn't mention them at all, we're talking about the loan process, not the college.

 

[Infohawk]

It's the same here.

My understanding is that it not the way it works in the US anymore. The federal government is the direct lender. In any case, if the government is backing the loan then your argument doesn't really seem to make sense. There is no risk for the bank. Of course they're going to approve the loan. And like I said earlier, in cases where the bank doesn't have the government's guarantee, nobody is giving decent educational loans anymore.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did you reply to the right person? I don't think colleges are free at all. Other than my statement that for profit colleges are a scam I didn't mention them at all, we're talking about the loan process, not the college.

With an android it's hard to quote anything

FWIW I agree that things need to change, but I would include legal protections for colleges to be able to say "You aren't performing, you need to leave." without constant litigation.

 

[Pulsar]

But, where does that start? Most schools are non-profit, right, though the have huge endowment funds. However, there is a reason why college costs continue to increase 8-10% annually and it's not the endowment. It's the pay increases to get in talented professors, tons of administration personnel, the swanky digs that colleges are building and the millions being put into programs that don't earn any or enough revenue.

Bullcrap to the bolded part. The rest is very very accurate.

This is just like what's going on at public schools. Have you checked out your principal's or superintendent's pay scale lately?

I know at our small rural school, he makes over $120k a year. Unbelievable.

 

[LegendKiller]

Bullcrap to the bolded part. The rest is very very accurate.

This is just like what's going on at public schools. Have you checked out your principal's or superintendent's pay scale lately?

I know at our small rural school, he makes over $120k a year. Unbelievable.

I went to the University of Minnesota for my undergrad. I *loved* the old buildings on the mall, they were probably very cost efficient and could be heated/cooled in the brutal MN weather. Now they love building huge glass monstrosities that have to be an absolute bitch to heat/cool and/or install the correct glass vs brick. The Science Classroom building, which admittedly was a nasty and dilapidated building, has been replaced with these new buildings. Sure, it's pretty, but unlike the original building, this one is now more than half filled with admin.

Meanwhile, when I went there from 1997-2001, the cost was ~10k including dorms/food. Now its over $23k. That's utterly ridiculous and is driven by these idiotic decisions about building, staff inflation and the like.

The other problem is that the states are contributing less to the schools because they have to contribute more to public pensions and salaries.

Personally, I do not 100% agree with public unions. Most public workers were never mistreated.

 

[Svnla]

So much fail from the guy in the story.

Let see, drop out of engineer school with dad was paying for it, went to a for profit "school" to learn how to cook, took out over 140K in loan with high interest rate. <shaking head>

If he could not find a job, why not get an oil and gas job at North Dakota and such? Oh, I forgot, he is too cool for such jobs.

 

[nehalem256]

Generally, when people talk about "bad choices" they mean things like getting into gambling debt or doing something illegal. This guy hasn't been unethical or broken any laws. He's now homeless. I feel bad for him. Doesn't mean I think the government should forgive his loan altogether, but he's not like someone who tried to get rich quick by robbing a bank or committing fraud.

Or taking out a $60,000 loan to become a cook. Jobs often done by people of shall we say questionable immigration status. Just because something is not unethical or illegal doesnt make it a good choice.

So much fail from the guy in the story.

Let see, drop out of engineer school with dad was paying for it, went to a for profit "school" to learn how to cook, took out over 140K in loan with high interest rate. <shaking head>

If he could not find a job, why not get an oil and gas job at North Dakota and such? Oh, I forgot, he is too cool for such jobs.

He only took out $60,000 in loans. The other $80,000 is from not paying it for 10 years.

 

[Infohawk]

Or taking out a $60,000 loan to become a cook. Jobs often done by people of shall we say questionable immigration status. Just because something is not unethical or illegal doesnt make it a good choice.

I didn't say it was a good choice.

 

[Svnla]

He only took out $60,000 in loans. The other $80,000 is from not paying it for 10 years.

only 60K to learn how to cook? Did he even know that he can not discharge student loan via bankruptcy/charge off/any other means?

What he should have done was to work in a kitchen at a nice restaurant, learn as much as possible and move up.

My statement is still stands. So much much fail for him.

 

[chucky2]

You let the lender protect itself by not issuing the loan in the first place. No one forces them to give away money.

If the student loan is treated like any other loan then why would the loan from the students perspective not be able to be treated like any other loan?

I'm failing to understand why if a bank or lending institution decides to give money to a student that likely has nothing to secure it with other than a future hope of a job that will pay enough to live and pay the loan back, why it's anyone but the lending institutions fault when the History of Dance major can only find a job as a stripper and can't/won't pay her $130k in loans back?

I took out Federal Stafford loans for my college and worked and paid the rest, so I'm pretty ignorant on the whole student loan thing....there's something I'm missing here right?

Chuck

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm failing to understand why if a bank or lending institution decides to give money to a student that likely has nothing to secure it with other than a future hope of a job that will pay enough to live and pay the loan back, why it's anyone but the lending institutions fault when the History of Dance major can only find a job as a stripper and can't/won't pay her $130k in loans back?

There are 2 sides to every argument.

Republicans:
We shouldn't let people weasel out. That's why we should protect lending institutions so their bad ideas never come back to bite them in the ass. Irony, what's that?

Democrats:
The lending institutions are unfair because they discriminate between people who are reliable and people who are unreliable. That's why the federal government should insure loans paid to people who have atrocious credit are likely to never pay back the loan.

Nice and balanced. Every logical position is covered.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Is it just me or has everyone forgotten what "bankruptcy" means?

You do not get a "get out of jail free" card here. Your assets are, well, assessed and decisions are made as to your feasible repayment futures.

IOW, if the court thinks you can pay it, it will still hold you responsible for payment.

The analogy is simple. You have crappy soil or not enough water, you are not going to get the apples you expected come harvest time. You do not chop down the tree and sell the wood to try to recoup. You simply find what you can get, and find the cheapest way to get more next year. Win/win.

Now the thing I can't understand is this: Just like with the housing loans giving $450K to Jose, Maria and their 15 kids for their first house in Atlanta, how the HELL are these loans being approved for $100K+ on majors that stand a STRONG risk of non-payment?

Culinary school, Fashion Academy et all should not be so easy to get loans for.

You apply, and get into, Cornell Engineering (hell, Rutgers Engineering), there is a low risk. You apply to Joes All Night School of "art", your bank should not be so ready to give you $20K/yr.

That was the bank playing double down on a pair of 2's in blackjack. Why do our laws say that the 2's will be responsible for paying the loss when the hand does not pay out?

 

[Exterous]

From this I don't get that we should feel too sorry for the kid, although it is a great sign that we should sharply reduce or eliminate any federal support for for profit colleges. They are a scam.

Completely agreed and they tend to prey on the disadvantaged.
"Look how this working mother who previously had to work two dead end jobs was able to improve her life by going here"
"This 40 year old lost his job but is now an IT Network Systems PC Analyst for Users. Look! He can play on the beach with his kids now!"

That student loan debt would rise signficatnly as a result of the debt becomeing non discharagebale should not have been a surprise.

Let kids discharge the debt if needed and I bet student loans come down as well as tuition prices.

I don't think anyone foresaw the rapid ballooning in tuition prices. I do think restricting the flow of tuition loans would tamp down on the rapid increases. I also agree with LK that there needs to be more accountability on the person who takes out the loan than there was in 2005 but there is a risk imbalance that needs to be addressed.

Bullcrap to the bolded part. The rest is very very accurate.

I think you underestimate how much some Universities are willing to pay to get top talent. Its not just salary either. There are often significant research, building and support costs. You may get a new professor on the balance sheets for $150,000 a year but that doesn't show the $60,000 lab remodel, $75,000 on lab equipment or whatever compensation they give the two assistants he requires (or reduced income from lowering tuition costs for those assistants). The additional HVAC systems and other unique support systems add another $20,000 per year on the balance sheet

I never really did much research on it when I worked at the in-house architecture department at a major university but a significant part of the millions spent on re-models/renovations/updates were professor research driven and quite often a result of getting new professors to sign on. It can be tough to separate the two as renovations can easily result in major building costs if you go over 50% as the old building now needs to be brought up to all current codes.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You saw it here first, folks. Someone presented a reasonable point in a respectful tone and someone else respectfully responded.

/me marks calendar.

 

[nehalem256]

If the student loan is treated like any other loan then why would the loan from the students perspective not be able to be treated like any other loan?

Because its not like any other loan. No sensible lending institution would make an unsecured $50,000 loan.

I'm failing to understand why if a bank or lending institution decides to give money to a student that likely has nothing to secure it with other than a future hope of a job that will pay enough to live and pay the loan back, why it's anyone but the lending institutions fault when the History of Dance major can only find a job as a stripper and can't/won't pay her $130k in loans back?

Are banks even allowed to ask someone's major when they apply for a college loan? Can you imagine the liberal whining if people were not able to get loans for Women's Studies or Latino Studies? Why it would be racist and sexist

 

[ShawnD1]

Now the thing I can't understand is this: Just like with the housing loans giving $450K to Jose, Maria and their 15 kids for their first house in Atlanta, how the HELL are these loans being approved for $100K+ on majors that stand a STRONG risk of non-payment?

Because the bank is not the one at risk.

mortgage:
If you have less than something like 20% down payment, you will require mortgage insurance. Up in Canada this is done through CDIC. The US has its own insurance things to support the loan. I'm guessing that's what fannie may does. Other insurance companies can take on the risk because they think the housing market is going to keep going up forever and never come down; AIG is one of those companies, and yes they went bankrupt.

student loans:
Changes to US laws made it so you can't just walk away. If the bank lends you $40,000 for African Studies, that debt stays with you for life. That means the debt is basically no risk.

 

[silverpig]

My understanding is that it not the way it works in the US anymore. The federal government is the direct lender. In any case, if the government is backing the loan then your argument doesn't really seem to make sense. There is no risk for the bank. Of course they're going to approve the loan. And like I said earlier, in cases where the bank doesn't have the government's guarantee, nobody is giving decent educational loans anymore.

That's the way it is here now too. It used to be that you'd get a government backed loan from the bank; now you get it directly from the government.

 

[child of wonder]

Anyone remember that story from a few months ago that talked of a college offering free tuition, room, and board while someone attends school but then 5% of a graduates income for the next 10 or 20 years had to go back to the college?

Although unenforceable and riddled with flaws, overall a plan like that could solve a lot of problems.

1 - Colleges have a vested interest in offering degrees that are likely to result in successful careers
2 - The amount a college is paid back is entirely dependent on whether a graduate is working and how much they're getting paid
3 - College would develop strong job placement courses and post graduation assistance programs to ensure students know how to interview and how to find jobs

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone remember that story from a few months ago that talked of a college offering free tuition, room, and board while someone attends school but then 5% of a graduates income for the next 10 or 20 years had to go back to the college?

Although unenforceable and riddled with flaws, overall a plan like that could solve a lot of problems.

1 - Colleges have a vested interest in offering degrees that are likely to result in successful careers
2 - The amount a college is paid back is entirely dependent on whether a graduate is working and how much they're getting paid
3 - College would develop strong job placement courses and post graduation assistance programs to ensure students know how to interview and how to find jobs

While the plan might have other flaws, it would definitely be enforceable for the most part. (unless the person ended up being in a low wage, under the table job at which point you aren't really getting much anyway)

 

[child of wonder]

While the plan might have other flaws, it would definitely be enforceable for the most part. (unless the person ended up being in a low wage, under the table job at which point you aren't really getting much anyway)

With government involvement it could be enforced but I'd rather the government just stay out of it. However, I suppose if a graduate doesn't pay the 5% voluntarily the debt could go into a collection status and their wages garnished or assets frozen just like what can happen today with an unpaid debt.