Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the cha-ching dept.

Recent college graduates who borrow are leaving school with an average of $34,000 in student loans. That's up from $20,000 just 10 years ago, according to a new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In that report, out this week, the New York Fed took a careful look at the relationship between debt and homeownership. For people aged 30 to 36, the analysis shows having any student debt significantly hurts your chances of buying a home, compared to college graduates with no debt. The cliche of "good debt" notwithstanding, the consequences of borrowing are real, and they are lasting.

The report paints a mixed picture of how student borrowing has evolved over the last decade, since the financial crisis. There are some bright spots: For example, student loan defaults peaked five years ago and have declined ever since.

And repayment seems to have slowed down among high-balance borrowers —those who owe $75,000 or more. Meaning, after 10 years, they have paid down only one-quarter to one-third of what they owe.

On the face, this isn't necessarily good. But taken alongside the decline in defaults, Fed president William Dudley said in a press briefing Monday, it reflects something good. That is, graduate students, in particular, are signing up for government programs intended to help make payments more affordable.

Source: NPR


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:16AM (36 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:16AM (#489060) Homepage

    Education is never "free". Like free healthcare, you pay for it out of your taxes.

    But before you think I'm just being contrarian - I live in a country with free education and free healthcare too.

    This is the POINT of taxes. To make those who can afford to pay for those things that society needs but nobody should pay for individually. Healthcare, education, policing, street lighting, roads, the list goes on.

    The irony is that not only do the US people pay tax, they don't get most of those expensive services funded properly or even at all, and even if they move abroad to a country that does they STILL get taxed by the US (which virtually no other country in the world does) unless they give up US citizenship.

    And where's all that tax, including double-taxed tax, go to? Not on services for people. It all goes on wars in the Middle East so that they can have slightly cheaper fuel (which they moan incessantly is so expensive). Which generate not only much more conflict over time, but more need for healthcare, education, etc. too.

    I always say that civilised countries realise that education and healthcare are things to SPEND MONEY ON. That's the whole point of them. You spend money on them so you don't lose money later on elsewhere.

    And, like you, because of such definitions, it's hard to class the US as a civilised country rather than just a blinkered warmongering tribal state. And they have the cheek to lecture Korea and China on "freedom"...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:35AM (#489070)

    "Education is never "free". Like free healthcare, you pay for it out of your taxes."

    I'd rather my taxes pay for healthcare and education rather than waging wars it can't even afford, locking up people over trivial issues just to justify keeping the prisons, and more of the same types of weapons it already has in sufficient abundance to wipe out all life on the planet.

    Probably just my screwed up priorities.

  • (Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:21PM (8 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:21PM (#489093)

    Education is never "free". Like free healthcare, you pay for it out of your taxes.

    That's why I said it's an investment the society I live in chooses to make. "Free education" is a figure of speech, meaning "available to everybody equally regardless of income".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:57PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:57PM (#489106)

      At least have the sensibility to stop calling it "free" when you mean "subsidized" and many of these semantics arguments would stop.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:10PM (6 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:10PM (#489117) Journal

        The semantics arguments would also be increasingly silly if they were also applied to roads, bridges, railroads, and other infrastructure, which they ought to be. When's the last time a poltroon exploded to his feet to assert that roads ain't free neither, they're paid for by yer taxes dadgummit--so the dern gubmint should git outta the road and bridge socialism and let the free market build 'em.

        You don't hear that because it's so stupid even dunderheads hesitate to utter it. Education and healthcare really ought to enjoy the same shield from stupidity. Why don't they?

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:40PM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:40PM (#489135) Journal

          The semantics arguments would also be increasingly silly if they were also applied to roads, bridges, railroads, and other infrastructure, which they ought to be. When's the last time a poltroon exploded to his feet to assert that roads ain't free neither, they're paid for by yer taxes dadgummit--so the dern gubmint should git outta the road and bridge socialism and let the free market build 'em.

          No, the poltroons waxing poetic about the "free" education, roads, etc apparently repeatedly need to be reminded that these things cost a lot and excessive spending on those things via public funding can harm a society.

          Education and healthcare really ought to enjoy the same shield from stupidity.

          No, they don't. A classic example of this is the whining about public spending austerity (basically fiscal discipline imposed from outside on countries with extremely high debt). You'll rarely see such a person acknowledge that austerity wouldn't have happened without all the free stuff that was being publicly funded.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:19PM (#489197)

            Yes things cost a lot, and they are being paid for by the people. What is being suggested is that we lower the individual cost by spreading it around the whole country. It is an investment in the future of our society, something I would gladly pay a little more taxes for. Happiness index, health / education indexes, the US falls behind on all of them! Many countries are doing fine with higher taxes and socialized health/education, so your argument is basically "But I'm selfish and don't want to do my part to make the country better!" We tried it your way and it has led to the debt ridden hellhole we are currently in.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)

            by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:43PM (#489239) Journal

            So, if a soldier protecting oil America gets hurt, he shouldn't get free healthcare?

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:50PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:50PM (#489337) Journal

              So, if a soldier protecting oil America gets hurt, he shouldn't get free healthcare?

              I'll need more information. Has he stopped beating his wife?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:46PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:46PM (#489140)

          Libertarians, particularly "anarcho-capitalists", do believe that those things should indeed be handled by the "free market". They make a good case, too.

          • (Score: 2) by joshuajon on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:41PM

            by joshuajon (807) on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:41PM (#489699)

            While the various AnCap memes [imgur.com] do take these positions to absurd conclusions, I can't help but acknowledge that no, in fact they don't make a good case.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:54PM (5 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:54PM (#489102) Journal

    Education is never "free". Like free healthcare, you pay for it out of your taxes.

    No, the sum of taxpayers pay for it out of taxes. If increasing the overall level of education increases the size of the economy and increases tax revenues by the amount that the education costs, then it is free. Generally, the increase in the size of the economy as a result of a more educated citizenship has been greater than the cost of the education.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:17PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:17PM (#489123)

      Try again.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:36PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:36PM (#489177)

        It's better than 'free'. It's an investment that gives a positive return.

        • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:16PM (2 children)

          by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:16PM (#489192) Journal

          With the current system where costs are unacceptable and out of control we have a massive glut of art/english/womens studies/non marketable degrees where people are stuck. These fields give back, but not enough that the graduates with these degrees are able to find jobs. Making education "free" will give us more people with these degrees now footed by the tax payer who will never see a return on investment.

          If we are going to go down the road of government funded education we should make STEM and a few other applied fields "free" but reduce the costs of other degrees persuent to need. This would add a market factor. Kids good at it would still be able to get music theory degrees based on merit based scholarships, colleges can themselves set up endowments to make these degrees "free". We dont need taxpayer money paying for the unnecessary, the consumer must still face some risk.

          I say this as a person who got an Accounting degree and feels that even if the system was changed I should still owe money because there are too many accountants. Currently down to 50k of debt from 80k after three years of repayment.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:55PM (1 child)

            by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:55PM (#489246) Journal

            Holy shit.
            My daughter has 30k in debt, and i cant believe that. I'd have a dump or two over your debt.

            Shit, i just crapped myself.

            Then again, if you are good at it an enjoy it,.... It maybe worth it to you. (Disclaimer: my daughter and son in law live with us to help them financially.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:20PM

              by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:20PM (#489258) Journal

              I am one of the lucky ones, I only spent three years after graduation to get an entry level job in accounting that four years later has turned into a real breadwinner. My wife and I are also fortunate to have a free place to live (temporarily) while we take care of an ailing grandparent.

              The debt load really does postpone "adulthood" if we consider adulthood being home ownership and children.

              I personally feel the bigger barrier to success being the acquisition of new job opportunities by temp agencies and the move from perm employees to temps. Where I live on the west coast 80% of accounting/bookkeeping jobs can only be got through temp agencies, with multi-month wait between openings on the other 20%.

              Good on you for helping out family like that, really useful in paying down debt. Wish more families extended that chance to their kids.

              --
              Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:06PM (8 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:06PM (#489114)

    The US government spends more than any nation paying for socialized medicine. So no, American taxes go to socialized medicine, and far more than your taxes do.
    Every single cent spent by everyone for all heath related services in Britain, for example are about 150 billion. Times that by 10 just for medicaid and medicare. Similarly, the American government shovels hundreds of billions into paying for American Education. Before they started subsidizing Higher Education it was cheaper than most of the rest of the world.

    America is the most socialized country on Earth. A huge percentage of its budget, the biggest of any country, goes directly to feeding, sheltering, educating, and healing its citizens.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:24PM (#489128)

      Except so much of that money is wasted on bureaucracy and corporate profits.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:22PM (6 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:22PM (#489170) Journal

      America is the most socialized country on Earth.

      That's not accurate. Instead, the U.S. often chooses bad combinations of government programs allied with private corporations to produce the most inefficient economic systems... which is why American taxpayers end up paying so much.

      You bring up Medicare and Medicaid, but they aren't really the problem. They may be somewhat inefficient, but they have much smaller overhead than private insurance and control healthcare costs directly in a number of ways. Instead of socialized healthcare, the U.S. chooses to force its citizens to pay private corporations to provide them "insurance." The Democrats had the power to produce a true socialized system a few years ago, but instead they passed the "Affordable Care Act" which continues the problematic interactions with third parties in U.S. healthcare that end up ballooning costs.

      We did the same thing with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, organizations that are "sponsored" by the U.S. government to provide mortgages, but which also exist as public corporations. Thus, you get the worst blend: an organization that has enough freedom to completely screw up the mortgage market, but will always be guaranteed to be bailed out in a crisis.

      Student loan programs are similar. They have become perverse incentives driving the increasing cost of American higher education, once again by introducing a government program that funnels money into intermediaries indirectly, while allowing them to manipulate the markets.

      So no, in the U.S. we don't have socialism. Instead, we pay our government to prop up private insurance companies, bad mortgages, escalating private university costs, etc. The U.S. is so afraid of socialism that it refuses direct government intervention in many markets, instead creating "band-aids" that often provide perverse incentives that pour money into private corporations and entities.

      • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)

        by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:33PM (#489208)

        Medicaid and Medicare are not Obamacare. They directly pay for peoples healthcare costs. They are 25% of the entire budget or America.
        I agree that all of these programs don't work.

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:12AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:12AM (#489500) Journal

          Yes, I'm well aware of what all these programs are and how they function. The costs of Medicare and Medicaid are distorted because the general healthcare market is already so screwed up due to the influence of the private insurance system. Obamacare was just a bandaid on that system that fixed a few big issues while still leaving the market screwed up by profiteering third-parties.

          Medicare and medicaid already tend to pay out a lot lower than standard market value for procedures and care, but there's a limit to how much they can limit costs before doctors stop accepting Medicare patients. (Over 20% of American doctors are apparently refusing to take on new Medicare patients these days because the payout is too small.) But the doctors need to do that due to increased costs for everything else in the medical system they are paying.

          So yes, Medicare/aid are closer to socialized medicine, but they again don't work efficiently because of the government's other half-assed regulation of the private insurance market.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:52PM (#489213)

        It's worse than that, yet.

        Medicare and Medicaid hide their perverse incentives and socialised burdens such that their actual budgets don't reveal their real burden on society. The headline budget amounts are basically an accounting lie.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:51PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:51PM (#489280)

        The Democrats had the power to produce a true socialized system a few years ago, but instead they passed the "Affordable Care Act" which continues the problematic interactions with third parties in U.S. healthcare that end up ballooning costs.

        I would suggest that a "true socialized system" would be unconstitutional. At least there is a very strong argument that it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution (although the Commerce Clause seems to be the catch-all so maybe not).

        Therefore, the Democrats never had the power to produce a true socialized system. They had a first step in the process, but do you really think 2/3 of the states would ratify an amendment to grant the federal government this power?

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:00AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:00AM (#489496) Journal

          We haven't been living under enumerated powers since the late 1930s, since SCOTUS stopped striking down laws on that basis. (One or two outlier cases in the 1990s or whatever don't count.) The ACA is absolutely unconstitutional according to pre-New Deal jurisprudence, as would be 95% or more of the existing federal government today. So I'm not sure what your argument is -- do you seriously think the ACA would pass constitutional muster under the federalism doctrine of the Founders (or the first 150 years or so of U.S. history)? Please point to the enumerated power that authorizes the federal government to force people to buy health insurance (or to force people to purchase anything from a private corporation).

          Enumerated powers are meaningless now, so I don't see how one can say the Dems didn't have power to make a socialized system when they didn't have power to make the one they did. (This was proven in SCOTUS cases around the ACA, where a majority of the court actually agreed it was beyond enumerated powers... Except Roberts came up with a tortured way to redefine the wording of the law to read it as saying something different.)

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:22AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:22AM (#489608) Journal

        So no, in the U.S. we don't have socialism. Instead, we pay our government to prop up private insurance companies, bad mortgages, escalating private university costs, etc. The U.S. is so afraid of socialism that it refuses direct government intervention in many markets, instead creating "band-aids" that often provide perverse incentives that pour money into private corporations and entities.

        In other word, public-private partnership kleptocracy, aka legalized corruption.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:08PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:08PM (#489148)

    Name your country. If it's like almost all in Europe or even East Asia you spend almost nothing on the military to defend your country or keep order on the seas so global trade can continue because you push that job off onto the United States. The U.S. does the work AND pays for it too so you can spend that avoided cost on lavish social spending instead. You are a free rider.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:45PM (8 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:45PM (#489179) Journal

      Please, the US would do it anyway because it allows for global trade routes and cultural hegemony. Don't fucking kid yourself. And your argument would have been stronger maybe 20 years ago, but in case you hadn't noticed, the US is in the middle stages of a terminal decline.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:06PM (#489251)

        No, the argument is just as true today. Most countries STILL rely on the United States for their defense and defense of shipping routes. Trump is encouraging them to take some of the burden off the US by either sharing more of the cost or by building up their own military, but all that is at this point is talk. No changes have been made yet since we are at the beginning of this process.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:54PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:54PM (#489312)

        Azuma, you are consistently the nastiest user on this web site.
        It's fine to disagree with someone, but you could try to keep it factual rather than turning every single post into a spewing of your personal bile.
        Your posts should be labelled Troll or Off Topic 80% of the time. I have no idea if you are like this face to face or if it's just "Internet courage" that makes you talk to people this way. Ethanol-Fueled is a gentleman in comparison.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:49PM (5 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:49PM (#489366) Journal

          Oh cry harder, you whiny little manbaby. Eth is a troll; he's doing it for the lulz. I am deadly serious. And hey, guess what? Nasty doesn't mean wrong, nice doesn't mean right, and plenty of things *deserve* nasty. Like this content-free tone whinge, for example. How about you either address what you think I'm wrong about, or piss off back to your safe space, snowflake (am I doing that right?).

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:01PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:01PM (#489368)

            Nasty doesn't mean "right" either, Azuma.
            It's just... nasty. Orthogonal to right and wrong, unnecessary, and brings down the atmosphere of this website. Too much of the web is uncivil; it would be nice if we could make Soylent better than the rest.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:23PM (3 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:23PM (#489379) Journal

              Sure, it would be nice, but when the place is infected with real honest to God sociopaths like J-Mo, "nice" just gets you trampled on in contempt. There is an information war on. People like him see you acting civil and "nice" and they just think you're weak (they probably mentally refer to you as "cuck"), a useful idiot.

              And...I've seen too much and suffered too much and lost too many friends--to death, not "they don't talk to me anymore"--to let that kind of sociopathic nutjobbery just slide. I'm not in the mind-changing business, as that makes at least one fundamentally flawed assumption about the RWA cohort, but I've found that like all bullies they don't expect resistance and they haaaaaaate ridicule.

              You seem coherent and intelligent enough; why not get a username? I'm suspicious of people who post AC.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @11:00PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @11:00PM (#489402)

                I admit that it would be easier on me if I logged in with a username, but on principle, I use an anonymous account.

                The Net has turned into a massive tracking machine, and I want no part of that. Everyone is free to decide how much privacy they want, and that's where
                I personally draw the line.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 05 2017, @11:09PM (1 child)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @11:09PM (#489406) Journal

                  I hope like hell you're hiding out behind a chain of proxies then...

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:09AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:09AM (#489423)

                    I'm not paranoid. I'd just like a casual level of privacy on websites as a commenter. Why should I have to ID myself everywhere I go? I'm tired of showing my papers and having a record compiled on me. Like I said, it's on principle.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:30PM (#489327)

    American: I have freedom. I can say bad things about Trump.
    North Korean: I have freedom. I can say bad things about Trump.

    Shit, us Americans can loudly proclaim support or hatred of any religion or ethnicity. We can insult any leader, political or religious or otherwise.

    What we really need is freedom from supporting the so-called "civilized countries". We provide heavy-duty military protection so that those countries can spend their money on things like education and healthcare. If we pulled the plug on that support, budgets would change and/or territory would be lost in war.