|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 2:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
I don't doubt you talked to many young people who didn't have good jobs, but how do you know they were accurate representations of young people in America? |
Ever heard of Robert Reich? He knows more than anybody on the topic.
Why There’s No Outcry Despite A Declining Middle Class
http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/01/class-why-theres-no-outcry/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| bmaw01 wrote: |
| You must be smoking crack. The student loan system was taken over by the US government and they are making money from college grads. |
By giving interest-free/low interest loans (many of which will never be paid back, at an interest rate lower than the going market rate) to anyone who wants them, how is the government making money off of students? It's not. It's being generous. It's being helpful. |
I wouldn't call 6.8% interest-free or even low interest... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do so many US documentaries look like they've been made for the idiot demographic? Middle class Americans must be rich, look here they all are in one of the richest areas in America riding around on expensive motorbikes  and being shown and told all this at the same time by the guy from Hawaii five 0
For me there were a lot of conflicting ideas. Firstly, surely the two people who wrote the books were pretending to be working class, that was the point. It
was an experiment to see whether you could rise from the bottom. In the end
all they seemed to show was that the man was better than the woman at living cheaply and saving money. Not surprising considering he was writing a book about how easy it is to live on a crap wage and she was writing a book about how difficult it is. In his case, a lot of Western socialist states would give you an apartment and $8 dollars a hour for doing nothing, so it's not exactly the American dream.
The usual definition of 'middle class' in developed countries is a family unit having access to good quality health care, education and housing, while earning a living wage that gives them around a third of their income to either save or spend on consumer goods like expensive motorbikes.
The issue in the UK at the moment is that even people in traditional white collar middle class jobs, where both parents are working are finding this part of their income has grown smaller and smaller. Some households, maybe where only the husband works, are dropping into traditional working class situations where there's nothing to spend after all the bills are paid. This is largely due to the huge rise in housing and other costs plus stagnating salaries. So the traditional middle class segment of society is shrinking. I imagine, despite what the statistics guy at the start said, the same kind of thing
is happening in the States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
Why do so many US documentaries look like they've been made for the idiot demographic?
|
The most obvious explanation would be that people in the USA are idiots. The avg IQ there is 98 now, as opposed to 100 in the UK. Research suggests that genotipic intelligence in the USA is actually decreasing. One explanation for this offered by the researchers -- low intelligence people have unplanned births while high intelligence people choose not to have births at all (essentially the "Idiocracy" effect). Thru time the low intelligence breeders genetically swallow the intelligence non-breeders.
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
The issue in the UK at the moment is that even people in traditional white collar middle class jobs, where both parents are working are finding this part of their income has grown smaller and smaller. Some households, maybe where only the husband works, are dropping into traditional working class situations where there's nothing to spend after all the bills are paid. This is largely due to the huge rise in housing and other costs plus stagnating salaries. So the traditional middle class segment of society is shrinking. I imagine, despite what the statistics guy at the start said, the same kind of thing is happening in the States. |
You completely nailed what is happening in the states. Feminism was a tool to drive women into the workplace (more working class labor for the 1% to utilize). Now both work, but the upper class raise prices, and crush unions, to squeeze the workers for more and more. It's a transfer of wealth from the middle class, to the upper class, called income inequality. The middle class doesn't necessarily "shrink", they just get less of the pie, while the 1% get more.
We know this is happening, it's just a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
perhaps Japan!! Canadian health care is probably a good thing but it is a little backward. example the lack of cutting edge equipment. Pittsburg has more M.R. I machines than all of Canada. For some types of treatments Canadians have to go to the U.s.. Also during SAR crisis, the Canadian healthcare system
Flopped badly. They did not even take basic precautions! Japanese are richer and have much better infrastructure than Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| World Traveler wrote: |
| bmaw01 wrote: |
| You must be smoking crack. The student loan system was taken over by the US government and they are making money from college grads. |
By giving interest-free/low interest loans (many of which will never be paid back, at an interest rate lower than the going market rate) to anyone who wants them, how is the government making money off of students? It's not. It's being generous. It's being helpful. |
I wouldn't call 6.8% interest-free or even low interest... |
Its certainly not low-interest. Low-interest would be the discount bank-rate.
http://www.bankrate.com/rates/interest-rates/federal-discount-rate.aspx
0.75% at the time I posted this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If a student takes out a loan subsidized by the federal government, interest does not begin to accrue until a little while after graduation, meaning for the first four and a half years, the loan was interest free. That is a good deal for students. Also the interest rate is well below the going market rate. There are also loan forgiveness programs.
| Quote: |
| Perkins Loans carry a fixed interest rate of 5% for the duration of the ten-year repayment period. The Perkins Loan Program has a nine-month grace period, so that borrowers begin repayment in the tenth month upon graduating |
| Quote: |
| A Stafford Loan is a student loan offered to eligible students enrolled in accredited American institutions of higher education to help finance their education. The terms of the loans are described in Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (with subsequent amendments), which guarantees repayment to the lender if a student defaults. |
| Quote: |
| Because the loans are guaranteed by the full faith of the US Government, they are offered at a lower interest rate than the borrower would otherwise be able to get for a private loan. |
| Quote: |
Interest on Stafford Loans may vary and are determined based upon the date the loan was disbursed. They may also vary by the education level (undergraduate or graduate) of the student. Interest rates do not vary with default risk--all students receive the same interest rate regardless of their major or their future employment prospects.[3]
For variable rate loans, the rates are set annually using the price of the 91-day Treasury bill on the last Monday of May, and become effective for the following year on July 1. For fiscal year 2008-2009 the 91-day Treasury bill auctioned on May 27, 2008 at 1.905% (rounded to 1.91%) are used for the calculation.[4] On May 26, 2009 the 91-day Treasury bill was auctioned at an investment rate of 0.178%.[5] On July 1, 2009, the base rate for variable rate Stafford Loans were adjusted to 0.18%. Loans issued before July 1, 1998 were adjusted to a rate of 3.28%. Loans issued July 1, 1998–June 30, 2006 were adjusted to a rate of 2.48%.
As of July 1, 2006 all Stafford Loans are issued with a fixed interest rate. For Direct loans and most loan providers, the rate is currently set at 6.80% for unsubsidized loans, with lower rates for subsidized loans for undergraduates, usually about 3.40%.
On August 9, 2013 President Obama signed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013, changing how student loan interest rates are determined. The bill links student loan rates to the Federal 10-year Treasury rate, plus a small margin. The new rates are retroactive, effective for all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2013. This effectively reversed an increase in interest rate from 3.40% to 6.80% for affected loans. Federal student loan interest rates are fixed for the life of the loan; however, the rates for new loans will change annually, based on the current market. The interest rates for the current 2013-2014 academic year are as follows: 3.86% for undergraduate Stafford loans and 5.41% for graduate Stafford loans. |
TL;DR: It's not 6.8%. It is low interest. It is subsidized by the federal government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
If a student takes out a loan subsidized by the federal government, interest does not begin to accrue until a little while after graduation, meaning for the first four and a half years, the loan was interest free. That is a good deal for students. Also the interest rate is well below the going market rate. There are also loan forgiveness programs.
| Quote: |
| Perkins Loans carry a fixed interest rate of 5% for the duration of the ten-year repayment period. The Perkins Loan Program has a nine-month grace period, so that borrowers begin repayment in the tenth month upon graduating |
| Quote: |
| A Stafford Loan is a student loan offered to eligible students enrolled in accredited American institutions of higher education to help finance their education. The terms of the loans are described in Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (with subsequent amendments), which guarantees repayment to the lender if a student defaults. |
| Quote: |
| Because the loans are guaranteed by the full faith of the US Government, they are offered at a lower interest rate than the borrower would otherwise be able to get for a private loan. |
| Quote: |
Interest on Stafford Loans may vary and are determined based upon the date the loan was disbursed. They may also vary by the education level (undergraduate or graduate) of the student. Interest rates do not vary with default risk--all students receive the same interest rate regardless of their major or their future employment prospects.[3]
For variable rate loans, the rates are set annually using the price of the 91-day Treasury bill on the last Monday of May, and become effective for the following year on July 1. For fiscal year 2008-2009 the 91-day Treasury bill auctioned on May 27, 2008 at 1.905% (rounded to 1.91%) are used for the calculation.[4] On May 26, 2009 the 91-day Treasury bill was auctioned at an investment rate of 0.178%.[5] On July 1, 2009, the base rate for variable rate Stafford Loans were adjusted to 0.18%. Loans issued before July 1, 1998 were adjusted to a rate of 3.28%. Loans issued July 1, 1998–June 30, 2006 were adjusted to a rate of 2.48%.
As of July 1, 2006 all Stafford Loans are issued with a fixed interest rate. For Direct loans and most loan providers, the rate is currently set at 6.80% for unsubsidized loans, with lower rates for subsidized loans for undergraduates, usually about 3.40%.
On August 9, 2013 President Obama signed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013, changing how student loan interest rates are determined. The bill links student loan rates to the Federal 10-year Treasury rate, plus a small margin. The new rates are retroactive, effective for all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2013. This effectively reversed an increase in interest rate from 3.40% to 6.80% for affected loans. Federal student loan interest rates are fixed for the life of the loan; however, the rates for new loans will change annually, based on the current market. The interest rates for the current 2013-2014 academic year are as follows: 3.86% for undergraduate Stafford loans and 5.41% for graduate Stafford loans. |
TL;DR: It's not 6.8%. It is low interest. It is subsidized by the federal government. |
Yeah, that applies to loans from last year onwards. For the rest of us peons who had loans between 2006 and 7/1/13 it IS 6.8%. It is crazy that we cannot refinance those loans to match the current fed gov't student loan rates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
If a student takes out a loan subsidized by the federal government, interest does not begin to accrue until a little while after graduation, meaning for the first four and a half years, the loan was interest free. That is a good deal for students. Also the interest rate is well below the going market rate. There are also loan forgiveness programs.
| Quote: |
As of July 1, 2006 all Stafford Loans are issued with a fixed interest rate. For Direct loans and most loan providers, the rate is currently set at 6.80% for unsubsidized loans, with lower rates for subsidized loans for undergraduates, usually about 3.40%.
On August 9, 2013 President Obama signed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013, changing how student loan interest rates are determined. The bill links student loan rates to the Federal 10-year Treasury rate, plus a small margin. The new rates are retroactive, effective for all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2013. This effectively reversed an increase in interest rate from 3.40% to 6.80% for affected loans. Federal student loan interest rates are fixed for the life of the loan; however, the rates for new loans will change annually, based on the current market. The interest rates for the current 2013-2014 academic year are as follows: 3.86% for undergraduate Stafford loans and 5.41% for graduate Stafford loans. |
TL;DR: It's not 6.8%. It is low interest. It is subsidized by the federal government. |
The changes are not retroactive, and many do not consider 5.41% interest low-interest.
Yes, the government makes money off of student loans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/obama-student-loans-policy-profit_n_3276428.html
| Quote: |
| The Obama administration is forecast to turn a record $51 billion profit [in 2013] from student loan borrowers, a sum greater than the earnings of the nation's most profitable companies and roughly equal to the combined net income of the four largest U.S. banks by assets. |
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/student-loans-a-major-source-of-government-revenue.html
| Quote: |
The Department of Education is taking in an estimated $51 billion more in payments from student loan borrowers in 2013 than it is lending out. The budget surplus amounted to $120 billion from student loans over the last five years and is forecast to total another $110 billion by the time Obama leaves office, according to the CBO.
To put these numbers into perspective, the most profitable company in the United States, Exxon Mobil Corp., had profits of $44.9 billion last year. Apple Inc. made $41.7 billion and Chevron Corp. reported $26.2 billion. The interest being paid by students to the Department of Education in 2013 roughly equals the combined 2012 net income of the four largest U.S. banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. |
Now, compare the four and five-and-a-half percent interest rates with what U.S. banks receive rates from the Federal government, which is under one percent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The current student loan scheme represents for-profit education corporate welfare.
http://strikedebt.org/how-far-to-free/
| Quote: |
How much would it cost make every single public two- and four-year college and university in the United States tuition free for all students? Probably less than you think.
By our estimates, after stripping off the amount that the government already spends to subsidize higher education — including at predatory for-profit institutions — the total amount of new money necessary is less than $13 billion a year. Thirteen billion is a lot of money, to be sure, but within the scope of the Federal budget it is a fraction of one percent of yearly spending — merely a rounding error. |
Why has this not been implemented?
| Quote: |
In 2010 the government spent $35 billion in Pell grants (Bob Samuels). How much of this went to predatory for-profit schools? “In fact, during a 2012 Congressional investigation of for-profit colleges, it was discovered that up to a quarter of all federal Pell grant money is now going to these corporate schools that charge a high tuition and graduate very few students” (Bob Samuels, footnoote vi).
There is no reason to spend even a penny of public money on these predatory for-profit colleges. This money alone would go a long way towards lowering the cost of high quality public universities. One quarter of $35 billion would be $8.75 billion saved. |
A single-payer educational system threatens for-profit colleges.
Consider that college has quickly become a requirement for the middle-class, and high school was enough to enter the middle-class only thirty years before. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to fund the nation's public college education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Not really a problem. The United States is by far the wealthiest country on earth. It doesn't need to exclusively enrich itself. |
I believe per capita that would be Singapore as the wealthiest country on earth.
In true pure wealth, the US will be #1 for a while. I would expect China to surpass them though in my lifetime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
your blind patriotism is actually the mentality that is making america worse and what a cruel irony that you don't see it. |
Nailed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: What country has the richest middle class? |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
For years and years and years, the answer was the United States (without a shadow of a doubt). Now, it appears to be a tie between the U.S. and Canada. For the upper 50% of the population, the United States is by far the best overall. But for those at the very middle (50th percentile), Canada may be the winner. Same for those mildly to moderately below average. As an American, it saddens me to see the U.S. no longer a clear #1 (but rather just a maybe at this point)…BUT…#2 in the world out of 201 countries is not bad. It's still pretty good. And maybe I could move to Canada and work there. AND maybe in the United States I could join the upper 40% of society, upper 30%, upper 20% or even upper 10% of wage earners. In that case, America can't be beat when it comes to highest after tax incomes. Anyways, I just wanted to share this good news for those of us who may one day move home to Canada or the United States. (Most of us do eventually.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/this-simple-table-summarizes-our-story-on-american-living-standards.html?action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article |
As a former Maritimer, I realized how rich most American are or at least were when many came over here in large droves during the recession and had no student loans or very little. They had a mix of parents with money and a booming economy that put out lots of part time jobs. Where I'm from, a lack of jobs, and very few families that can afford to pay for their kids education means many graduating wholly or partially in debt (maybe 25 to 60 K range). Of course in western Canada the economy has been good for quite a while and many may not feel the pull of college as you can just go to work and make decent coin.
A lot of younger Americans (millenials?) know the pain of being a Maritimer in the sense that a good degree doesn't get a job anymore. They have still benefitted by low debt. But, if this bad economy continues (at least in some States), there will eventually be a situation where parents are no longer able to help their kids pay their college and they won't be able to find part time jobs. If this continues indefinately, then many States will end up like the Maritime provinces where a University degree is out of reach and the debtloads will keep you in bondage for years.
Some younger grads coming over may start facing this soon, but it still seems to be richer Americans I meet coming over here.
Canada has done better in many parts (much of Quebec and the Maritimes excluded). They threw off much of the socialist label that use to keep the whole country poor while still keeping basic consumer protections and banking rules. Hopefully Canada does not progress down the American road in this regard. But, what Canada also has in many places is a ridiculous living cost. Some parts of the States are still pretty cheap and seem to have a half decent economy. (Much of the middle and much of the south?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The current student loan scheme represents for-profit education corporate welfare.
http://strikedebt.org/how-far-to-free/
| Quote: |
How much would it cost make every single public two- and four-year college and university in the United States tuition free for all students? Probably less than you think.
By our estimates, after stripping off the amount that the government already spends to subsidize higher education — including at predatory for-profit institutions — the total amount of new money necessary is less than $13 billion a year. Thirteen billion is a lot of money, to be sure, but within the scope of the Federal budget it is a fraction of one percent of yearly spending — merely a rounding error. |
Why has this not been implemented?
| Quote: |
In 2010 the government spent $35 billion in Pell grants (Bob Samuels). How much of this went to predatory for-profit schools? “In fact, during a 2012 Congressional investigation of for-profit colleges, it was discovered that up to a quarter of all federal Pell grant money is now going to these corporate schools that charge a high tuition and graduate very few students” (Bob Samuels, footnoote vi).
There is no reason to spend even a penny of public money on these predatory for-profit colleges. This money alone would go a long way towards lowering the cost of high quality public universities. One quarter of $35 billion would be $8.75 billion saved. |
A single-payer educational system threatens for-profit colleges.
Consider that college has quickly become a requirement for the middle-class, and high school was enough to enter the middle-class only thirty years before. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to fund the nation's public college education. |
Geeze. American system seems complicated. Lots of different bodies and agencies. In Canada you apply to your provincial government for a university loan. There's a maximum amount offered each year. If a school's too expensive, it prices itself out of the market as the student will not have enough money to cover it and will have to go to a school that he can pay for. Of course tuition and books do still take a lions share of the debt. Even with a big loan, there's little left over for actual living expenses like rent and food. (This is if you're unlucky enough to have a university in your hometown and can't live at home with mom and dad.) I was 50 K in the hole for only student loans.
Anyways, you apply to your provincial government and get a loan in two installments. One is in September and the other is in January. About 60% of it is from the Federal government and 40% of it is from the Provincial government. Out of your total loans, maybe 10 to 15 % of it each year is an actual grant or non repayable bursary. You have six months grace after graduation before you have to make payments. After which you can apply for relief. Government pays much of the interest and you pay a small part of it. Princiapal remains frozen and your credit remains in tact. (When I started, there was no payment required and the government use to pay all the interest.)
It's a government agency that runs the program and administers the repayment and collection of it. The banks use to do it years ago but they wanted a better deal (IE more exploitation) and the government told them to beat it and took it over. You choose a fixed rate or a floating rate when you first enter repayment. If interest rates go down floating is better. If they go up, a fixed rate is better. Thankfully over the last 10 years they went down. Floating is currently equal to 5.5% (prime rate plus 2.5%). Credit card purchase rates are 19.9% and cash dvances on most cards are 21.9%. Many mortgages are a similiar rate to student loans. If a 20 something with no credit applies for credit, they usually get assessed a much higher interest rate than 5.5%.
So, what do some of you other folks do? Brits, Aussies, etc? You have no payments until you return home and pay a certain amount of your paycheck for infinity? Does it count towards your credit score? (It does for Canadians.) Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't seem the question has been answered.
It could be quantified, but would require a lot of work. Looking at avg income per citizen, even on a purchasing power basis, is kinda pointless. The citizens could have large income, even relative to high prices, yet have massive debt (like the USA).
Here are some interesting charts; income per capita divided by debt per capita. It puts Japan #1. The USA is #2, but you have to remember the income inequality in the states means "the 99%" are generally negative, and the 1% are massively positive, giving you the mean which is displayed in the chart.
Japan has significantly better income inequality. So lacking any better analysis, and just looking at it on paper, I'm going to go with Japan.
http://www.creditloan.com/blog/americans-debt-to-income-ratio-as-compared-with-other-countries/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
