This seems… misleading, in a weird way. Even some of the comments are confusing, though I may be just clueless as I’m not American (I’m Canadian, so don’t know any people directly impacted by this to question in person).
There are comments here saying it’s really tough because low interest private loans are less available. People noting huge increases in their monthly payments (by percent, but often not noting the actual dollar value from what I can see?).
The article notes that the average student loan debt is around $38k. Even with a terrible interest rate of like 12%, which is what my local Credit Union offers for personal loans, that’s a monthly payment of $500 for ~10 years. The guy in the article is an outlier it seems, in that he has a 6.3% interest rate and payments around $5000 – so while the average person is out 38k, this guys in the hole by like $400k+?? The reason it costs them as much as a mortgage payment, is cause they spent as much as a house getting his education. I doubt education costs ‘skyrocketed’ partway through his education, so he would’ve seen that bill coming. And for the price of that education, I’m guessing he could run the numbers with more accuracy ahead of time, and make an informed/educated decision on whether to take out those loans.
Sure, but you’re framing that in a way to be as positive as possible about it. How about, “the 18 year old that wanted to defend criminals and get them out of violent crime offenses for huge profits”, and went into debt to pursue what they thought was going to be a hugely profitable career? Do you really think regular people, who go into debt just ~40k based on what the article states, should also be comp’ing that other case with perks/debt forgiveness? The article is specifically using an outlier case, who went into debt for a profession that’s respectable, to skew opinions…
Student debt is an issue in the states, I don’t disagree on that as far as I understand it at least. It’s just that a lot of the articles around the subject seem very heavily skewed by political bias, which is annoying. And me being annoyed by that, and wanting more neutral discussion, I don’t think of as bootlicking.
The second sentence doesn’t only apply to folks going into the medical field, and I would say a lot of jobs help people.
Do you really think regular people, who go into debt just ~40k based on what the article states, should also be comp’ing that other case with perks/debt forgiveness?
Yes.
It’s just that a lot of the articles around the subject seem very heavily skewed by political bias
I think this is why I am not super interested in engaging with the particulars of your reply. Because you’re right, there is selection and political bias in this article. But not in the direction you think. Because the article completely omits the culture pressures that started the issues of student loans. That for many it was seen as the only path out of poverty, and wanting to foster that while still allowing markets to drive everything in the country, the government decided the loans was the correct solution. Since these were 18 year olds getting goods that could not be returned, the only market solution to that was make the loans not discharged on bankruptcy.
Once the costs were abstracted into the future, the tuition start to quickly rise, and with government backing the student loans, the loans rise with them. Since schools are now getting an order of magnitude more from each student they lure in, they heavily push the idea that you will be flipping burgers for minimum wage unless you have a degree, reframing university as not a place of higher learning for those with exceptional interest, to the necessary step after high school. This taking root devalues all degrees, but 4 year degrees in particular, leading to a drop in the salaries expectations of the professional class with 4 year degrees.
With this market driven strategy giving rise to these new problems, income driven payment plans become much more common, and with those being cut off, suddenly the 1.6 trillion dollar debt bubble in the US starts to become realized. Which is what this article is touching on from a more personal level.
All of that being said, reaching for criminal defense lawyers as your example of a morally abhorrent and greedy career track says much more about your bootlicking than anything. If you had a worthwhile conception of the problem and reality of it, you would have picked one of the much better examples.
The difference is our student loans are not predatory, and our schools are not as expensive, tho we can’t discharge our loans through bankruptcy either. I’ve had 3 loans and even paying minimum they were paid off in a decade or 2, repayments are higher in the states and from what I understand the minimum payments there are interest only.
This seems… misleading, in a weird way. Even some of the comments are confusing, though I may be just clueless as I’m not American (I’m Canadian, so don’t know any people directly impacted by this to question in person).
There are comments here saying it’s really tough because low interest private loans are less available. People noting huge increases in their monthly payments (by percent, but often not noting the actual dollar value from what I can see?).
The article notes that the average student loan debt is around $38k. Even with a terrible interest rate of like 12%, which is what my local Credit Union offers for personal loans, that’s a monthly payment of $500 for ~10 years. The guy in the article is an outlier it seems, in that he has a 6.3% interest rate and payments around $5000 – so while the average person is out 38k, this guys in the hole by like $400k+?? The reason it costs them as much as a mortgage payment, is cause they spent as much as a house getting his education. I doubt education costs ‘skyrocketed’ partway through his education, so he would’ve seen that bill coming. And for the price of that education, I’m guessing he could run the numbers with more accuracy ahead of time, and make an informed/educated decision on whether to take out those loans.
400k is not uncommon for medical school debt. Blaming it on the ~18 year old that just wanted to get a decent job helping people is bootlicker talk.
Sure, but you’re framing that in a way to be as positive as possible about it. How about, “the 18 year old that wanted to defend criminals and get them out of violent crime offenses for huge profits”, and went into debt to pursue what they thought was going to be a hugely profitable career? Do you really think regular people, who go into debt just ~40k based on what the article states, should also be comp’ing that other case with perks/debt forgiveness? The article is specifically using an outlier case, who went into debt for a profession that’s respectable, to skew opinions…
Student debt is an issue in the states, I don’t disagree on that as far as I understand it at least. It’s just that a lot of the articles around the subject seem very heavily skewed by political bias, which is annoying. And me being annoyed by that, and wanting more neutral discussion, I don’t think of as bootlicking.
The second sentence doesn’t only apply to folks going into the medical field, and I would say a lot of jobs help people.
Yes.
I think this is why I am not super interested in engaging with the particulars of your reply. Because you’re right, there is selection and political bias in this article. But not in the direction you think. Because the article completely omits the culture pressures that started the issues of student loans. That for many it was seen as the only path out of poverty, and wanting to foster that while still allowing markets to drive everything in the country, the government decided the loans was the correct solution. Since these were 18 year olds getting goods that could not be returned, the only market solution to that was make the loans not discharged on bankruptcy.
Once the costs were abstracted into the future, the tuition start to quickly rise, and with government backing the student loans, the loans rise with them. Since schools are now getting an order of magnitude more from each student they lure in, they heavily push the idea that you will be flipping burgers for minimum wage unless you have a degree, reframing university as not a place of higher learning for those with exceptional interest, to the necessary step after high school. This taking root devalues all degrees, but 4 year degrees in particular, leading to a drop in the salaries expectations of the professional class with 4 year degrees.
With this market driven strategy giving rise to these new problems, income driven payment plans become much more common, and with those being cut off, suddenly the 1.6 trillion dollar debt bubble in the US starts to become realized. Which is what this article is touching on from a more personal level.
All of that being said, reaching for criminal defense lawyers as your example of a morally abhorrent and greedy career track says much more about your bootlicking than anything. If you had a worthwhile conception of the problem and reality of it, you would have picked one of the much better examples.
The difference is our student loans are not predatory, and our schools are not as expensive, tho we can’t discharge our loans through bankruptcy either. I’ve had 3 loans and even paying minimum they were paid off in a decade or 2, repayments are higher in the states and from what I understand the minimum payments there are interest only.