Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Forgiving Student Loans: A Stimulus Measure to Revitalize the Middle Class
How would your life change if, all of a sudden, you no longer had to re-pay your student loan debt? What would you do with that extra $250-$1,000 of your paycheck every single month? If Congressman Hansen Clarke (D-MI) has his way, this question might not be rhetorical anymore. Student loan debt forgiveness could be the stimulus measure that breaks us free of this long recession.
What would you do with an extra $250-$1,000 of your paycheck every single month? (Image: wearethe99percent.tumblr.com) Millennials are being strangled by record high student loan payments, more than any previous generation due to the skyrocketing costs of higher education, high unemployment, and stagnant wages. A whole generation is seeing their plans and ambitions shackled by the extra weight of their student loan payments. These young people are unable to buy a home, start a family, or do the socially important but underpaid jobs in the social services sector where many recent grads cut their teeth.
Congressman’s Clarke resolution, H.R. 365, aims to redirect the attention of government officials from reducing the federal deficit to addressing the real crisis facing millions of Americans and perpetuating this recession: the unrelenting financial drain on the economy caused by record levels of household debt. H.R. 365 also deals with home mortgage and personal debt, but as a Millennial the part I am most interested in is his proposal to forgive student loans.
Acting on this resolution would provide a trillion dollar stimulus to the demographic most sought after by advertisers and by realtors: college educated young people. These are the people that have the potential to revitalize the housing market and local economies. Best of all, this wouldn’t just be a short-term money injection; this resolution would result in millions of people being able to keep more than 13% of their paycheck every month for 30+ years (assuming Stafford loan interest rates and using average millennial debt and wage).
Now, any measure that specifically targets student loans, mortgage rates, and other forms of personal debt carries some inherent social justice issues. This measure would do little to directly help the poor.
On the other hand, eliminating student loan debt and helping people lower their home mortgages are investments that revitalize the middle class. This country used to take immense pride in its strong middle class, but it hasn’t promoted its growth for the past thirty years. When the American Dream was still achievable, a poor household could aim to achieve middle class status, but recent trends are showing just the opposite. Regardless of work ethic, more and more middle class families are slipping into poverty, in part because of the heavy debt burden of house ownership and of pursuing a higher education degree. For the first time since the Great Depression, today’s Americans are not likely to have a better standard of living than their parents.
Another criticism rests on the assumption that if current debt is forgiven, it would discourage future borrowers from paying theirs back. This argument points at the real crisis in higher education. The problem isn’t simply that people have too much debt, but that by choosing to enroll in an institution of higher learning to hone their skills and become a more productive member of society, they are essentially forced to. This is a financial burden that used to be largely taken on by the government (and still is in most other modern democracies) because it was recognized that the road to social and economic growth was rooted in an educated citizenry. Thus, while this criticism has some validity, it simply stands to underscore the need to reform our systems of financing public higher education altogether so people no longer have to take on such high debt burdens.
By injecting a trillion dollars directly in the bank accounts of college graduates, forgiving student loan debt will enable them to finally put their education to a good use and get their adult lives off the ground. Will this measure alone be enough to revitalize our ailing economy? Perhaps not, but I still haven’t found a valid argument as to why it should not be a major component of a recovery package.
3p is proud to parter with the Presidio Graduate School’s Macroeconomics course on a blogging series about “the economics of sustainability.” This post is part of that series. To follow along, please click here.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllNot only should student debt be forgiven, current and future students should not have to pay one single dime to get a college education. The only entrance criteria should be merit. Anything other than that indicates the USA does NOT value education. If it's important, it should be free. Can you imagine having to pay a "free speech" fee everytime you posted to CD, wrote a letter to the editor, expressed an opinion? Why is a poll tax illegal? Because we supposedly value voting. And so on.
This is the crux of the matter. For those who are able to benefit from it, education should not be a luxury purchase. All students who meet academic qualifications (which might, at some upper levels, be competitive) should be able to attend school at no cost.
what academic qualifcations?
the ability to discuss the molecular processes at work in local factories, and the resulting health impacts of those factories on local air, wells, plants and populations?
the ability to use numbers to disguise and defend blatant murder and land theft?
the ability to limit one's thinking to society's lowest standards?
what does an academic think? what does a pot smoker think?
do they share any views? which ones?
love when the human brain brags about how smart it is...how much smarter than another...even as it kills everything around it...including the body it resides within...
We are the first generation to fail our young people. Let's support them now.
Any debt forgiveness must also be done with a complete ban on gov. guaranteed loans to students that are attending for profit colleges. This is a bigger rip off than the mortgage fiasco.
the economy isn't in crisis...the ecology is...
if the planet weren't dying, we would have jobs galore...
the planet is dying because of our jobs...
the economy cannot die, as it is not a living thing...
living things die...people, animals, plants...whether they had jobs, or not...
your school loan is your problem...a dying world is everyone's problem...
I do not view your deisre for a job more important than my desire for a planet...
can you think critically?
do you know what a resource is, or how industry uses such?
where would you, Mr. Doctor, practice, if you had no electricity, or anesthesia, or scalpel?where did those things come from?
how were they produced, and at what costs?
opium, for example, comes from Afghanistan...lots of it...
how can that be?
if we forgive half your debt, will you treat me for half what another doctor would charge?
when one understands, Doctor, the delicate play between this world's myriad molecules that makeup not only our surroundings but our own bodies, as well, how does one address industrial devastation as the source of money?
why focus on the sick, and ignore the industries making them so?
because it is easier, and makes one wealthy?
is there another reason?
can you say medical\chemical alliance?
Regarding dubet's comment:
I remember a comment made by James Burke. He hosted a BBC television series (avalible on netflix) "Connections" in which he traced technological inovation and development over a period beginning in antiquity to the present (1978).
His commentary reflected on the process whereby motivation for technological innovation and devolopment rested on (or is connected to) previous invention and development. One particular comment he made stayed with me. Paraphrased, it is this:
"No solution to a problem has ever been achieved using technological innovation and development without creating new problems."
Or the short version: "Technology does not solve problems" in the sense that it does not remove problems. It transforms problems, but they are not eliminated.
Personally, would hold as valid the recognition that the problems created by technology are far "bigger" than the problems origionally solved by any technological advancement.
Dubet's referral to a medical/chemical complex is a case in point. Extending life at this point in time is turning out to be very expensive and increasingly so. So extending life for example is turning out to erode the very support system in which life in its present form has evolved.
I object to posing ecology against the economy. Someone said "I can't be a patriot on an empty stomach". Same for being an environmentalist. When you have an empty stomach, that need is ever-present and painful and makes it difficult to focus further outward, although some manage to do so. What we need is an economy in harmony with the earth.
Converting to green energy, enhancing public transportation, repairing, cleaning up, conserving and taking care of what we already have would create millions of jobs. It would unify taking care of the health of human individuals, and all living things, with the health of our earth, on which we all depend.
jclientelle, the people who routinely throw the "economy vs. environment" bogus argument around are usually the right-wing politicians and corporate shills.
"dubet" has been pretty consistent with his objection to putting the economy (or "jobs") first, and, by implication, the ecology as an afterthought. That might have been ok 80 years ago (although I seriously doubt it could have been "ok" even back then).
You say "Converting to green energy, enhancing public transportation, repairing, cleaning up, conserving and taking care of what we already have would create millions of jobs."
Yes, they most definitely would. But what's missing in today's debate and clamor is an explicit call for sustainability. It's also a safe bet that 99.999% of the people cannot even define or describe what sustainability really means. I am one of them. But I have a feeling that a truly sustainable society would look completely different from what most of us have seen or even imagined.
Yes, we cannot be an environmentalist on an empty stomach. But once the stomach is full and in the absence of an immediate crisis, most people are likely to go back to sleep and back to their distractions and addictions.
If you don't believe me, try telling the Albertans in Canada that their tar sands operations are a grave danger to life on earth and see how many agree to change course. Oh, their stomachs are full, by the way, as far as I know. :)
I don't have the answer to the question, "What would make them listen?". But I do know that now that their stomachs are more than full, they are in no hurry to stop what they think is feeding them.
It's probably not politically correct to talk about the environment when people are fighting for a basic livelihood. But I think this is the time to point out, or SHOUT, that whatever we do to create jobs should take us closer to a sustainable society. You may recall that some "union members" actually showed up at a hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline in support of the damn thing as they expect "jobs" to be created. And many people mourn the loss of auto manufacturing jobs. And there are politicians who "bring home the bacon" in the form of defense dept. jobs.
So, there are jobs and then there are jobs. Your post clearly shows that you know all this. But I think we need to make this explicit and not let past mistakes be repeated in the name of creating jobs. I really think lots and lots of people will have to "unlearn" many things that we have taken for granted and to learn, for the first time, what sustainability means.
Alcyon - When I was in DC at the State Dept. hearings on the pipeline, there were many hundreds, maybe a thousand, of us at the rally. We looked like a somewhat diverse group, but mostly white, well-nourished and neatly dressed. There was a counter demonstration of about 40 wearing orange shirts with a slogan that the pipeline creates jobs. They were all black and poor looking. From a photo op perspective, it was bad for the pipeline opponents.
I went up to talk with the orange-shirted counter-demonstrators. None that I talked with had any idea of what the pipeline is. They had never heard of solar or wind. One fellow told me he didn't know what it was about, but was being paid for that gig. I mentioned the type of jobs that I envisioned with conversion to clean energy. I asked him if he thought he would get a job on the pipeline. He seemed embarrassed so I stopped talking.
You are right that we have a lot more work to do to communicate with and include those who are desperate for a job, any job. They mostly get the company viewpoint, and in this case, were being used.
Wow jclientelle, so the "union members" were bused in. Figures! But sad, all the same.
Great posts!!!! jclientelle, dubet alcyon, and onemorethought!!
Our economy is a subset of the ecosystem.
The ecosystem is the sine qua non
I agree! Great posts!
Deleted by poster
A recent study posted on this website has shown that many are not developing critical thinking skills.
We have been raised with insecurity. Status, careers and amenities are all replacement for our lost security of not being held and breast-fed for years and not being raised in a secure constant group that as we become adults then merges with the security of the natural environment around us in which we find all that we need to survive in.
When we had this real security all of our basic needs were met and we wanted not. This is how we lived for 99% or our history.
Civilized humans are still the same. Many studies have show that we do not gain any further satisfaction or security after our basic needs are met. This is why you can never have enough wealth and stuff to feel secure. You always want more.
Please read The Continuum Concept by Jean Leitoff.
Can we again live as secure humans living in small groups, meeting our basic needs?
Even if our basic physical needs are met do we have secure groups that we can live out our lives in? To provide our social needs?
We underlings, if we have any money at all, cannot earn even 4% on it tied up in a long cert. of deposit. Students must pay exorbitant interest. If they miss a payment on say, $150 per month, because of no income, the bank ups the interest demand to $450 per month.
This is usury. It's unjust. It's cutting us so bad it's killing us, not just the students but the parents and the rich uncles, too!
Maybe we can get some bankers to go back to school and take out some student loans. Then we can all get bailed out together.
Direct democracy
And it's not just young people who have lots of student debt, recent student debt even. I hope this and future bills addressing this don't try to somehow age-limit who can have their debt forgiven.
no kidding. i'm 48 and wound up defaulting on what was 37k of debt and is now 78k of debt from graduate school. worst mistake I ever made was going back to school, and it's a shame that anyone has to say something like that. this is one area, though, that I think power wil resist strongly. right now they have a couple of generations by the cajones over debt and I can't see them willing to give up that kind of mass control.
"Another criticism rests on the assumption that if current debt is forgiven, it would discourage future borrowers from paying theirs back." ..........And what about the "too-big-to-fail" banks?
Has $Trillions of Dollars in "taxpayer" BAILOUT money changed the bankster attitudes about gambling THE PEOPLE'S MONEY with Credit Default Swaps and other weapons of mass destruction? Of course not! ........There's a HUGE difference in the $Numbers of student debt vs bank gambling debt. The difference is in the $Trillions and it's going on the tab of future workers in this country who will be earning pennies on the dollar if our parasitic government doesn't change the path we are on with all the bogus trade agreements and bogus monetary policies they are perpetuating. ......The staus quo isn't working for the 99% and it's going to create a "bloody" revolution at some point in the near future. .......People are getting sick of this bull$hit!
Amen, Gail.
I'm not buying this completely. One female student on one network newscast over the last few days wanted forgiveness on her student loan while she doesn't graduate until next year. (WTF?)
Perhaps an education could be 'repo'd through diplomas being withdrawn and all credits dissolved. You know, back to square one and perhaps a mark on their credit score with a portion to be garnished by their future employers. At least you could shake 'free' of it – kinda.
Dunno. The whole thing sucks. I can understand the anger. The good in all of this is that Academia & Empire are both now being exposed for the financial and intellectual frauds they are, and that future generations might have a fighting chance to Escape the Debt Flypaper of the Higher Education Myth.
Maybe, if you're a little old, you don't understand. Today students must begin paying interest on their college loans WHILE they are still in college. Or their parents do. It's corrupt through and through.
We need educated people, very well educated. The people who live here are the most valuable resource. Right now it takes a lifetime to pay off student loan debt. It's arguably not worth going to school for the money. But, we need doctors and engineers. How is the country gonna operate with no higher education. Out here in California, the people on Welfare have it better off than any working people, let alone those with debt. They get housing, health care, start multiple families. Maybe that's the way of the future.
Repo a degree ? what if they had a legitimate reason for default. Like cancer? Credit score maybe but there has to be a better way than becoming an indentured servant.
I was young when I bought my house, and now it is worth less than I owe. Maybe we should forgive that kind of debt also. My wife died in 2004 and I am still paying hospital bills for her care. What about that kind of debt?
I was young when I bought my house, and now it is worth less than I owe. Maybe we should forgive that kind of debt also. My wife died in 2004 and I am still paying hospital bills for her care. What about that kind of debt?
You are the 99%. A place to live and medical care should not strangle families. It would be possible if the 1% had not skimmed all the wealth, abetted by every administration since Reagan. The 1% got bailed out, we got sold out. Of course your debt should be forgiven. That would stimulate the economy, except perhaps the yacht, $4000 designer bags and mansion sectors.
That's the problem right now. Most mortgages are under water. And the answer I receive is "well, you took on that obligation willingly , no one forced you to sign for the loan"
Yes, we did take on many of these obligations willingly but we did not create the current financial situation. Your only relief comes with bankruptcy. While it's a harsh solution that most do not want, at least you know it's there for you. With student loans there is no bankruptcy so you will pay until you die.
As a parent of a 12th grader and sophomore in college, this really bugs me. We sat our kids down and told them that they will have more choices in life if they are as debt free as possible, and as a result, we told them that they could only apply to schools we could pay for. That means in-state schools. Meanwhile, I know people who are encouraging their children to take out $5,000 - $10,000 per year in debt so they can go to a bigger name schools. I don't feel that my tax dollars should have to go to subsidize the people who chose schools that they couldn't afford in the first place.
It's not a waste. You taught your children useful values. But for many, even the rising cost of city and state schools, not to speak of vocationally oriented higher education or professional training, entails going deep into debt. It is not students' fault that education is so expensive in this country. It should be subsidized as it is in many civilized countries, and the current debts forgiven.
This is an old racket now. WHat people forget is that the mesage has been consistently "education!" as the meal ticket for everything. So people respond to that, rarely if ever thinking that there's some zero sum problems sitting right there in the middle. I don't think it's smart to make this a taxpayer issue, though. It's an enduring social myth that everyone is peddling without dealing with the obvious math problems of employing a bunch of overeducated folks in a contracting, service-oriented economy.
The best advice any parent can give a child is to learn a trade that can't be easily offshored or inshored. You can read Rawls and Hobbes on your own time.
hey, drone!
you say:
~ The best advice any parent can give a child is to learn a trade that can't be easily offshored or inshored. ~
excellent sentence...I will not even attempt to further...at this time...
What about students getting together and just refusing to repay their loans? There. Stimulus package instituted. No need to wait for the do-nothing Congress. In international law there is the concept of 'odious debt', debt incurred for example by criminal regimes that, once liberated, are free of the obligation to pay it back. I think one could make a case with the student loans backed by Uncle Sam, that these loans have no legitimacy because the US govt. has no legitimacy. 'We the People' never voted to steadily cut back in college funding decade after decade, beginning in the 70s. 'We the People' never voted to funnel all that money into the MIC or tax breaks for the wealthy. The bought-and-paid-for Congress did that. We are constantly told to be 'realistic' by the pinhead pundits in the corporate media and the pinhead pols who are supposed to represent us. 'We can't afford education, we can't afford health care, we can't afford alternative energy, blah blah blah.' Well I'm sick of it. It's all lies.
Forgiving ALL student loans, immediately, should be Demand #1 of OWS. Demand #2: a Constitutional amendment declaring: "Corporations are not persons, and are therefore not protected under the 14th amendment of the US constitution. Moreover, money does not equal "free speech," and federal will henceforth be publicly funded." By no means would these measures suffice. But as part of about 10 or 15 substantial reforms, they could make a big difference.
I'll be blunt with this generalization of a certain segment of the voting population. Generation after generation has received publicly funded education; however, the trend over the last decade or so has been to vote blindly for tax cuts without regard to what is being cuts. And who have been voting for these tax cuts besides the wealthy, parents who aren't wealthy; the same parents that received public education and are now responsible for allowing their kids to be so indebted or not receive an adequate education at all. It makes me sick to see so many of the young go through critical learning years and get cheated on an education. They will pay for it for life.
Fees at Cal and other UC campuses in 1965 were $60 per semester, the equivalent of 40 hours of work at minimum wage. In the '60's there was no such thing as student loans. Reagan became Governor in 1966 and immediately began raising fees. He said that he didn't want to support those protesting. Student protest has declined since the end of the Vietnam War and no student movement has been sustained for long since. The elite know what they are doing. Reducing competition for their off spring and reducing dissent at the same time by making the cost of an education exorbitant. The resultant competition for the high paying job obscures the idea that the solutions for survival in the middle class need to be collective and not individual. Lately even the graduates of Cal, Stanford and the Ivies are not finding lucrative employment. The student loans are not only onerous they are enslaving because one can never be forgiven even through bankruptcy. The banks got special exemption and anybody liable under the loan such as parents whose child dies in debt can have their social security attached. The only debt other than Federal Taxes that is so favored. How bad is that? That student debt forgiveness would definitely stimulate the economy and would serve justice. Along with the forgiveness should be federal and state subsidizing all students with a free education. Else how can we have a true democracy?Since education has been the reserve of the affluent the stratification of our society has increased. Between 1950 and 1970 more than 25% of the lowest quintile made it to the top quintile. Now it is less than 10%. Not healthy!!! This bill is an easy beginning. Let us do it.
There were student loans and grants in the 60's and the same considerations applied, would it be possible to pay them back based on job earnings or parents.
What about making loans contingent on income. If someone isn't making a living wage then their obligation would be forgiven. Payments would be interest free and contribute directly to the education process.
Why do these students have to borrow so much money? Could it be that their parent's wages have remained flat while corporations are posting record profits?
The parents work three times as hard for the same pay. Corporations are slime. I know what they are thinking: "Instead of PAYING our workers for their labor let's keep those profits and LOAN the workers money to make ends meet and LOAN their children money for college."
How can anybody call this anything but theft? This country is on a track to make the gang of 400 billionaires an aristocracy while the workers are reduced to serfdom.
What used to be the middle class will never get out of debt. the whole country is turning into a society of plantation owners whose workers buy their necessities at the company store on credit. When the workers die they die owing more than their net worth.
This is worse than "owing your soul to the company store", this a return to feudalism.
I am in agreement with moonpie, I am not buying this 100%. And this is coming from someone who has a hefty amount of student debt, though and added to my undergrad debt by just completing a masters. More debt. That being said, these were my choices, I went in full well understanding what taking on a loan would mean and I think some of these people who want their debts wiped away are being unreasonable and have to be held accountable for their decisions.
Although, I think if student loan companies are reasonable and adjust payments to income and provide some sort of hardship then that is fair. But to have the whole debt wiped away is unreasonable and will again have to be paid for by tax-payers.
The biggest thing would be restructuring the way education works and the loans. And for some people to realize that what they are studying might not reap many rewards, and therefore should think long and hard about a degree in social sciences when once you are done all you are going to be doing is waiting tables or serving lattes! At least that is what I am finding out. I say part of that in jest, but some degrees just are not worth much these days!
The flip side to comments that people should not take out student loans that they cannot afford is that banks used to perform due diligence by verifying income. To put the onus only on the borrower is unfair.
When does the consumer alone decide in any commercial loan what they can afford? What happened to debt to income ratio? The only loans that are given out without any due diligence are student loans. These loans are given out to 18 year olds who have little experience with commercial lending. How can any 18 year old project what their income will be once they graduate? Perhaps there should be more due diligence done on the part of the lender before these loans are provided. So if a teacher's income is only going to be 40K a year on average, the loan should never exceed their income. And with the current situation, if you default it becomes almost impossible to get out of default. They want it to be that way. They do not adjust for hardship in most cases. Do you know that if a person is disabled and collecting social security they can offset part of that disability check for the student loan. Same with Social Security checks. What other type of loan allows for this in the USA?
Student loans are seen by students as an investment, so they can increase their mental capital and qualify for a better job. Generally they have no income to speak of at the time. If you go based on parents' income, that is another way to favor the "haves" and block a poor family from education, which is often considered as the main path to a better life..
Due diligence would include telling the student that there is a good chance he or she will not get a job commensurate with their education. But no banker is going to say that when they have a large pool from which they can collect interest...
It would be far better to provide community service stints in teaching, in health care etc. for students after graduation in return for loan forgiveness and experience on the resume. That would mean changing our national priorities to value work and responsibility over predatory finance and creating a pool of desperate workers for corporations.
"It would be far better to provide community service stints in teaching, in health care etc. for students after graduation in return for loan forgiveness and experience on the resume. That would mean changing our national priorities to value work and responsibility over predatory finance and creating a pool of desperate workers for corporations. "
Perfection, jclientelle
Beany, as you suggest, student loans have become fertile ground for predatory lenders, who as you say do no due diligence at all and ensnare these young college students into heavy indebtedness. For the reasons you state, we in the Movement must demand a return of basic consumer bankruptcy protections to student loans, i.e., student loans should be dischargable under Chapter 7 bankruptcy the way any other consumer debt is.
Also, the federal government has been willfully involved in this predatory process, by backing up most student loans. Actually, I don't know what percentage of the 800 odd billion dollars of student loans are federally backed, but it would be interesting to know. In any event, by backing these loans, many of which were quite risky by most lending standards, the federal government assumed some responsibility for the transaction. This to my mind is another argument for forgiving all federally insured student loans. It will be a massive stimulus to the economy. We can start giving everyone a guaranteed 4-year college education, since a well educated populace is a precondition for a vibrant democracy. It matters not whether it leads to a "good job."
Most think the left are typically spoiled brat rich white kids. So in essence they should just suck it up and pay their debts.
I don't think this makes sense at all. First, if they were rich, regarless of race, they wouldn't need student loans at all. Rich mom and dad would have paid for their educations out of pocket. But this is the typical and nonsensical thinking of many in this country.
The entire student loan system is predatory. They WANT people to go into default. Has anyone noticed that when the economy was tanking schools and lenders were promoting education as the fix?
Duplicate Post! Sorry, again.
If I very clearly click "preview" -- so that I can edit, especially on these news items that don't form automatic paragraphs -- and I do NOT click on "save," why are my posts showing up as being posted?
Oh, well -- just more CD glitches to deal with! It is very annoying to me, and probably to others as well!! Again, sorry!
"Has anyone noticed that when the economy was tanking schools and lenders were promoting education as the fix?" -- Beany555
Exactly!
Even years before the crash, I had a few friends who believed that if they went back to school, and earned their masters, or Ph.D., or if they took classes for certification in a specific field, they would be investing in their futures, and they would be able to get a job, and a better job.
My son wanted me to go back and get my masters. I looked around, and I just didn't see the possibilities, with the outsourcing and insourcing (H1bs, L1 Visa programs, etc.) that was and is taking place in this country with the support of the corporations that are joined at the hip with the U.S. government.
I was right -- and I say that with great sadness. None of my friends who went this route are better off than they were. The degrees did NOT open up additional, and/or better possibilities in the marketplace of employment. Now, they are all saddled with new debt.
BTW -- Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a great book on this subject -- BAIT AND SWITCH. She ran into countless people with degrees who couldn't find work when she was researching and writing NICKEL AND DIMED, and thus, she wrote this book.
I have a couple of friends who lost their jobs when the dot.com bubble burst, way back in 2000, and they have never recovered! The man has a masters degree, and my female friend has a B.A. Neither of them owned a dot.com company, but they worked for people who owned the companies. At that time, they had really good jobs, and it didn't even occur to them that they wouldn't find other good jobs, but they haven't!
$850.00 a month goes to student loans and that's just interest. It just throwing money down the drain so that can keep my good credit, which is the only thing I've got. No savings, no home, no chance to retire, and low wages.
Any others here like me? How much do you pay a month?
"Just not paying it back" is not an option. There are hardship deferments, but you need to keep on top of renewing them or you end up in the situation I'm in, where I'm considered in default, no longer eligible for deferments, and am having my wages garnished to pay a 25 year old student loan. There is no statute of limitations; there is no way to discharge the loan through bankruptcy. There is no guarantee even that death will discharge student debt:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/college-loan-forgiveness-student-dies-parents-pay/story?id=12886093
I am scrambling every month to keep my bills paid, and, even so, usually something has to wait. The $160 a month that is being taken from me would go a long way to resolving that situation, but I was denied an appeal against the garnishment on the grounds that I had not sufficiently proved it would be a hardship. Facts no longer matter to bureaucrats - even having to play "what utility will I keep on this month?" won't deter them. Got a job? Well! You earn enough to pay your loans back. Q.E.D.
According to some I was not supposed to have taken out a loan if I couldn't pay it back. There was no way I could have looked forward a quarter-century to see where I would be and realize I would be in no position to pay it back. Those who demand absolute knowledge of the future before taking out a loan are being ignorant at best.
(and why can't I get line feeds to work on CD comments?)