Job Discussion Forums

[Santos L Halper]

JZ/Tainan, I enjoy your comments and you raise some good points but I think we are on two different azimuths.

To paraphrase: There needs to be an out for people with student loans because they might be stuck in a job they don't like in order to pay them back. There's plenty of enjoyable pursuits out there and such folks ought not to be left out from participating in them. To hold them to fulfill their debts reeks of indentured servitude.

And that's what I can't agree with.

Everyone makes choices. Like it or not, someone who is 18 years old is an adult and has the capacity to enter a contract. Now, to subsidize someone else's poor choices in order to allow him to indulge his own whims encroaches on the freedoms of others. Whose? Well, anyone who is a taxpayer. When all is said and done, you are taking money earned by one individual and leaving him no choice in the matter, and compelling him to cover the obligations of another.

To me, that is what has the pong of indentured servitude, as one individual is essentially compelled to work for the benefit of another.

That's not to say there's not valid reasons for having programs that forgive student debts. I think there are. For example, a school district might cover the student loans for some teachers. That's a good benefit that might be offered to retain good teachers, and the local taxpayers could make sure their school board act to create such a benefit according to their wishes. However, to create some federal program to absolve borrowers only based on income, to do so because someone might miss out on travel or an exotic lifestyle, or they're simply too creative to work, or because they choose to dedicate themselves to pursuits that are lightly remunerated, I think that is just a way to rationalize laziness and poor decisions.

[JZer]

[JZer]

Santos L Halper wrote,

[JZer]

edited!

[Zero]

[JZer]

[Tainan]

Actually, the government fritters money away on thousands of things I, as a tax-payer, don't approve of. A lot gets made of, for example, subsidizing modern "art" but there are even more useless things: mind-bogglingly pointless layers of beaurocracy, for one. Or unnecessary wars. The tax-payers do not get consulted on any of these things, so to have the "you're robbing the poor tax payers!" bit pulled out against someone who borrowed student loans seems a bit rich to me.

And has it occured to you that that same government is, at the moment, running a deficit in some trillions of dollars?

Not a single tax-payer is going to pay a penny more based on my repayment or non-repayment of my student loans. Do you really think someone in Washington is going to say "Well, John Doe didn't pay his student loans this year, that's seven thousand we were counting on that we're not going to have--looks like everyone in America is going to have his taxes raised by 0.03 a year because of it."

Santos writes:

[Tainan]

Meanwhile, the actual mechanics of the program for someone teaching in China are worth asking about in more detail. Under the program one devotes a certain percentage of one's income to repaying one's student loans. Someone under the federal poverty level (which I'm pretty sure is where I was when I was teaching in China) pays, I think, nothing. But how would one even demonstrate one's earnings when they are in a foreign currency?

Meanwhile, it's worth pointing out that even before these new programs there were some options for deferments and forbearance, which for someone only wanting a year or two in China would have been enough.

[Santos L Halper]

I wouldn't say that going to college is a poor decision. However, if someone wants to attend a college whose fees will leave them with many thousands of dollars of debt, that might not be a great decision, but hey, it's his choice. But, I think it is unreasonable to expect the government to grant absolution, which is exactly what happens if someone were to only pay what he's comfortable with. We're talking about loans, which are made with an expectation of repayment. Nobody has a right to have someone else fund his higher education in the field and institution of his choosing. If that were the case, why not apply for an endowed scholarship in the Enginnering department at Ohio State and use that money to pay for your tuition in blancmange studies at Ivy League U? Why even bother applying for a scholarship...Why not skip all the paperwork and just demand a check?

I fully agree that someone should do what he enjoys, what he feels called to do. However, I believe that if someone willingly incurs debts and obligations (and no way you can make the case that any student loans are made under duress- even considering any "social pressures" or familial pressures; if you really did feel that way you'd seek to have the contract deemed void or voidable, right?) then the duty to honor those comes first. By choosing to take on debt one is saying he will pay back the money in future. Therefore, he can either choose to honor that promise or not honor it. If he chooses to honor it, then he will have to choose whether to order his life to enable himself to repay his debt, or to work with the lender to adjust the terms, or eventually choose not to honor the promise. Simple as that.

Sure, I don't like government waste, and I think our government spends extremely poorly and that we're in a precarious spot. Nevertheless, that's a red herring that doesn't excuse someone wanting to flake out on his own obligations. The difference between things like NEA funding, wars, & cetera is that those sorts of things don't involve denying a valid contract made between an indidividual borrower and an individual lender.

Forebearance and deferments are fine, and people should feel free to take advantage of them. Still, it doesn't obviate the underlying debt. Any way you slice it, either you think you have a duty to honor your obligations or you don't.

[JZer]

[Santos L Halper]

Ah, but I think it is exactly that black and white my friend.

Consider this famous quote:

This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell. My blessing season this in thee!

I think we'd all do well to remember that. However, we also need to think about it in conjunction with the lines that precede those:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

[JZer]

[JZer]

[Santos L Halper]

That is true that the govt offers grants to people below the poverty level. Also, it's true that local govts fund primary education.

However, when you talk about borrowing money for higher education, then that's a different kettle of fish. Sure, maybe most 18 year olds are dumb and irresponsible and immature. Nevertheless, they're still adults: they can vote and own property and serve on juries and other activities reserved to adults.

Included in that list is the ability to enter a contract, and that includes a contract to borrow money. At bottom of all this is that when you start letting people walk away from their obligations, be they mortgages or student loans, and have the government cover them, then ultimately it is the taxpayer on the hook. And no, just because each instance might be only a penny per tax payer doesn't make it any less immoral. As Zero pointed out, the govt doesn't have any money of its own that it did not confiscate from some other person. No way, no how. No matter how you try to spin it, a government does not create value; rather, it redistributes it.

You mention a side issue too, that 18 year olds are too dumb and immature to think through the ramifications of borrowing large sums. That's probably true. But, IF we extend to them the benefits of adulthood, then when should we expect them to abide by the responsibilities thereof? We could coddle everyone through university and gap years and grad school so that by the time a man is 35 he might be ready to enter the work force, for a term of about 15 years until he takes early retirement. Thus, we have shrunk the productive years to approximately 20% of a person's life. What sort of society can continue that way? You'd then have 20 percent of the population supporting the other 80%. But, that's a different issue not directly related to how someone with heavy student loans ought to deal with them.

I still think that the road to self sufficiency includes being debt free. However, being debt free doesn't include weaseling out of prior obligations. I think it was Hansen who said that he considered being debt free a prerequisite to going overseas. That's the smart way to do it, but it's not necessarily the only way. The key is to be able to manage your obligations. If that means setting aside $150 per month for student loans, then maybe it also means one weekend less per month of hanging out in bars and partying. It took me a while to realize that the world does not revolve around me, and that NO ONE owes me a good life. Rather, I have to go out and make it happen. That includes hard work, and owning up to the promises I make.

[JZer]