Workers want pay boost

[ford91exploder]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Back in the Day, weren't the college loans that were routed through banks still insured through the government?
So while the banks would hound delinquent students to pay back the loans, they still would get their money?
Therefore the banks could take chances with higher risk borrowers because they were only risking the interest, not the loan itself?
And taxpayers were on the hook for that money?
I don't know if I'm right, I could be wrong, you're in a position to correct me and I seriously don't mind.

Oh, and is there proof that this new setup resulted in tens of thousands of jobs in the DC area? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I honestly don't know, but considering how federal jobs kept getting trimmed in the years since this change, I'd find it hard to believe it was indeed "tens of thousands."

Slappy,

You are correct in the loan flow and that the taxpayers were on the hook for the guarantees, So the banks COULD take chances which meant that a lot of people got a loan which of course some were not repaid that's a social cost I think was overall worth it as a better educated population is a more productive and engaged population.

I've always thought for some programs Govt should forgive student loans for some fields like medicine/teaching/civil engineering/agronomy if the student would agree to serve in areas like Appalachia for 8 years with a modest stipend for support.

Now since some government functionary's record is on the line it's a lot harder to get loans in the FIRST place and of course first choice will always now go to the 'connected' regardless of merit. And because it's government funded student loans are the ONLY debt which survives bankruptcy.

I went to school during the Reagan years when Student loans were virtually unavailable so I worked a job and lived at home to save money, I think schools are wasting money on amenities but I don't think the solution in a world were governments give 'free' tuition to their qualified students is the US cutting back on the availabilty of colleges.

The tens of thousands is an estimated guess based on the number of banks and the number of people they had to process the applications - since government is always less efficient they will require more people NOT less.

 

[slappy magoo]

Slappy,

You are correct in the loan flow and that the taxpayers were on the hook for the guarantees, So the banks COULD take chances which meant that a lot of people got a loan which of course some were not repaid that's a social cost I think was overall worth it as a better educated population is a more productive and engaged population.

Assuming every single one of those unpaid college loans came from people who actually got a degree versus people who dropped out before graduating, yes. Honestly as far as I'm concerned college should be as affordable as possible, we as a nation ought to be investing far more into college for the same "an educated population is a better one" argument. But since that's socialism (so I've been told, often by people who can't really define "socialism"), if we're going to let education costs skyrocket as they have, then we should use as little money as possible processing the loans. You argued below there's no way the government does anything cheaper/faster/better than the private sector and my not-really-all-that-snarky reply is "not with that attitude." When we hold the government responsible to be responsible, it can accomplish great things, it's just that we don't, then insist on throwing all the bums out without properly vetting the potential next crop of bums than act surprised when things don't get better.

I've always thought for some programs Govt should forgive student loans for some fields like medicine/teaching/civil engineering/agronomy if the student would agree to serve in areas like Appalachia for 8 years with a modest stipend for support.

Well there is this. http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/charts/public-service Don't know how well it works though.

Now since some government functionary's record is on the line it's a lot harder to get loans in the FIRST place and of course first choice will always now go to the 'connected' regardless of merit. And because it's government funded student loans are the ONLY debt which survives bankruptcy.

I can't source any clai that supports or refutes your claim. However, I found this interesting, according to this pdf file, while the amount of students receiving loans has decreased from 49 to 43% over the past decade, the amount of student getting GRANTS INCREASED from 44 to 49%. How much of that makes it a "wash" with the extra 1% being "float" or those students who no longercan get loans because of a troubled past, I don't know. https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/student-aid-2013-full-report.pdf

I went to school during the Reagan years when Student loans were virtually unavailable so I worked a job and lived at home to save money, I think schools are wasting money on amenities but I don't think the solution in a world were governments give 'free' tuition to their qualified students is the US cutting back on the availabilty of colleges.

I'm a little later than you, going to college 87-91. I'm sure every college budget has some waste in it, be they public or private. But I also know that in many communities that have a college (or two) the local economy gets a tremendous amount of support from the colleges, especially by students just needing to buy stuff in local shops (maybe not so much now in our Amazon age). And many colleges see extravagances in their amenities as "loss leaders" to get students to want to come. It'd be great to cut waste, but someone has to decide what's waste. I never went to a college football game and couldn't care if my college even had a team but I know no one would voluntarily decimate their school's athletic program because of what the alums kick in. But that's true of nearly every department, one man's trash and all that.

The tens of thousands is an estimated guess based on the number of banks and the number of people they had to process the applications - since government is always less efficient they will require more people NOT less.

But this switch has occurred during an era of unprecedented austerity, where the loss of public jobs is a decisive and definite drag on the economic turnaround. Even when the private sector was slowly starting to improve, public sector jobs in federal and state and local levels were being slashed. So I'm not even sure how accurate your "estimated guess" is in this instance. But as I wrote before, if you elect serious people to run the government and they employ serious people to efficiently provide services, you see less waste. Deficit spending has gone down each of the past 5 years, some of it due to winding down of the wars, and some of it due to ending some of the Bush tax cuts, and ARGUABLY some of it due to the reduction of government services. I write "ARGUABLY" because many of those people who lost their jobs didn't necessarily find better jobs or jobs at all in the private sector so we lose out on the monies that come from their taxes and the stimulus that come from their spending. But when I read talk about "tens of thousands" of jobs being created on the Federal Level it reminds me of those hundreds of thousands of IRS jobs that we were told would be created to manage Obamacare money that would bankrupt the nation and have so far not materialized.

 

[networkpro]

Not a happy disney discussion at all. But for my 2 Kopecs worth of comment I'd like to bring up that some student loans are and were for "for profit" worthless certificate mills that produce not resources with salable skills learned there but rather folks who were lied to about the marketability of said certificates. There is/was little safeguards for these programs that allows people to borrow more than they could possibly repay given the acquired skills... this also goes for non-profit educational institutions as well.

 

[Cubfan300]

We could go back to the days when Laywers were not allowed to ADVERTISE, I want to throw something every time I see a lawyer ad for some drug side effect

Everytime I see a commercial with the lawyers and side effects, I first see if it is something I'm taking and then make a mental note to never take that drug in the future. Drugs are worse than the condition that they are managing!!! Scares the doo-doo outta me!!!

 

[ford91exploder]

Assuming every single one of those unpaid college loans came from people who actually got a degree versus people who dropped out before graduating, yes. Honestly as far as I'm concerned college should be as affordable as possible, we as a nation ought to be investing far more into college for the same "an educated population is a better one" argument. But since that's socialism (so I've been told, often by people who can't really define "socialism"), if we're going to let education costs skyrocket as they have, then we should use as little money as possible processing the loans. You argued below there's no way the government does anything cheaper/faster/better than the private sector and my not-really-all-that-snarky reply is "not with that attitude." When we hold the government responsible to be responsible, it can accomplish great things, it's just that we don't, then insist on throwing all the bums out without properly vetting the potential next crop of bums than act surprised when things don't get better.
Well there is this. http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/charts/public-service Don't know how well it works though.

I can't source any clai that supports or refutes your claim. However, I found this interesting, according to this pdf file, while the amount of students receiving loans has decreased from 49 to 43% over the past decade, the amount of student getting GRANTS INCREASED from 44 to 49%. How much of that makes it a "wash" with the extra 1% being "float" or those students who no longercan get loans because of a troubled past, I don't know. https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/student-aid-2013-full-report.pdf

I'm a little later than you, going to college 87-91. I'm sure every college budget has some waste in it, be they public or private. But I also know that in many communities that have a college (or two) the local economy gets a tremendous amount of support from the colleges, especially by students just needing to buy stuff in local shops (maybe not so much now in our Amazon age). And many colleges see extravagances in their amenities as "loss leaders" to get students to want to come. It'd be great to cut waste, but someone has to decide what's waste. I never went to a college football game and couldn't care if my college even had a team but I know no one would voluntarily decimate their school's athletic program because of what the alums kick in. But that's true of nearly every department, one man's trash and all that.



But this switch has occurred during an era of unprecedented austerity, where the loss of public jobs is a decisive and definite drag on the economic turnaround. Even when the private sector was slowly starting to improve, public sector jobs in federal and state and local levels were being slashed. So I'm not even sure how accurate your "estimated guess" is in this instance. But as I wrote before, if you elect serious people to run the government and they employ serious people to efficiently provide services, you see less waste. Deficit spending has gone down each of the past 5 years, some of it due to winding down of the wars, and some of it due to ending some of the Bush tax cuts, and ARGUABLY some of it due to the reduction of government services. I write "ARGUABLY" because many of those people who lost their jobs didn't necessarily find better jobs or jobs at all in the private sector so we lose out on the monies that come from their taxes and the stimulus that come from their spending. But when I read talk about "tens of thousands" of jobs being created on the Federal Level it reminds me of those hundreds of thousands of IRS jobs that we were told would be created to manage Obamacare money that would bankrupt the nation and have so far not materialized.

Right now there are about 20K jobs on USAjobs.gov,

I've worked for the government 3 times, Almost a fourth but that would have meant I needed to relocate close to Quantico - Each time I've run away screaming because govt operations are so inefficient.

I've got a couple friends working at the White House on temporary assignments from their universities and they can't wait to leave because they cannot get anything DONE. It's more important to appear to be doing something rather than actually doing it.

There is something fundamentally WRONG in DC and I think the comparison to the 'capital district' in the Hunger Games is apt.

You make a lot of really good points and I always describe myself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal in other words a libertarian. I think we will not see any REAL change in DC until we really clean house on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

[ford91exploder]

Everytime I see a commercial with the lawyers and side effects, I first see if it is something I'm taking and then make a mental note to never take that drug in the future. Drugs are worse than the condition that they are managing!!! Scares the doo-doo outta me!!!

It should not - Drugs until we can do drugs 'Star Trek' style where they are produced specifically for YOU will always have negative side effects for a small portion of the people taking them. It's counterproductive to pull a drug which helps millions - but has a few thousand with adverse effects but the lawyers pile on and make a boatload of cash.

The people affected should have their medical and income losses made whole but it should not be a get rich proposition for the lawyers.

There should be a medical review board which makes people whole except in cases where the drug was counterfeit or otherwise not as produced people cannot sue.

 

[englanddg]

Have a felony conviction for a drug related offense is one way to lose eligibility for student funding, Dishonorable discharge from Military is another.

More likely she was applying to an unaccredited school and with the changes in the student loan program in many cases those are no longer eligible for federal student loans.

And now that Student loans have been federalized they are now subject to a minimum FICO score if one exists for the borrower.

Now there are LOTS of ways the Government can deny student loans now that they are the sole issuer. This NEVER should have happened because education funding is now politicized. see drug / military above.

It's not that they are "unaccredited", in many cases. It's that they were accredited through questionable organizations, such as the ACICS.

 

[englanddg]

Yet you had no issue originally creating budgets that imply she's doing far better than the doc would have us believe. Funny, that.

Yes, and I have no issues with the hypothetical budgets I created. For you to say they are implausible, without having details yourself, is likewise a logical fallacy. Based on the information I had (and you had at the time as the documentary had not been aired and was not available online to watch), my budget wasn't implausable.

But, every person has their own concerns, their own risks, and their own pleasures. That's why budgeting is very personal, and not something that, outside of a general level, can be done in great detail.

You didn't attack my budget's gross premise with fallacy, rather, you dismissed it due to details, which you failed (over and over again) to describe, outside of vague references or emotional appeals.

Well, budgeting isn't emotional. It's survival. And, if she's not able to live on her wage, then...well...she should be near death.

She isn't, and her children are not living in anything close to poverty. They are living pretty much like many middle class lived 30 years ago in the US. To suddenly define that as "poverty" because of some random opinion, is stupidity.

Because you didn't sit down with her, build a ledger and examine her actual lifestyle / income / expenses / risk factors so you could even come close to crafting a detailed budget and lifestyle modification that would work for her?

Yes, I do. And, I have already.

She has to pay grant money back?

No, Pell (probably the only grant she'd qualify for before she was granted free tuition) doesn't require repayment. No grant does, but Pell is the most common. However, you ignored the rest of my statement. Predatory student loans. With that, I don't mean ALL student loans. I mean, specifically, private loans that or geared through local business institutions that target people like her.

But, you are good at ignoring things.

Since we're living in the world of "I don't know her but let's judge her anyway" maybe she got pregnant and thought the best thing to do was make a steady income RIGHT NOW to support her family, even if a few more years of schooling would likely reward her with better pay?

She had over a decade, and 3 children to make that choice. You see it as judgement, I don't. She has a situation. I don't judge her for the situation she's in. There is no morality in play here.

You want to make it some sort of moral situation, when it is not. It is a fiscal one.

It's a decision lots of people make, and while it seems like it bites most people in the butt, the alternative could have been not being able to support her family which, if you don't know what options might be available to you, seems kind of scary in a country where no one is supposed to get a free ride from the "makers?"

Life is "scary"...no one said it isn't. However, the options available to you can only expand, if you invest in yourself. And that means stop being a slave. And that includes being a slave to education and being a slave to whatever employers "decide" to give you.

The only way you get over the monster is by facing it up front, and tackling the situation.

If you sit there meekly and ask meekly, then you will ALWAYS be given meek results.

For the most part, she seems to have her situation under control, and on a positive track. But, that's not how many see it.

I'd be curious to see a follow up documentary in 20 years to see where she's at, and then again in 40.

 

[slappy magoo]

Yes, and I have no issues with the hypothetical budgets I created. For you to say they are implausible, without having details yourself, is likewise a logical fallacy. Based on the information I had (and you had at the time as the documentary had not been aired and was not available online to watch), my budget wasn't implausable.

Yes and if you only watch Psycho halfway through, it's safe to assume Norman Bates' mother is still alive.

Whoops. Sorry. Spoiler.

My beef is, I knew all along you didn't have all the info, and it was clear that some of your estimates were sketchy, despite your attention to the details YOU deemed important. You've been engaging in a sort of "bad science" approach to your theory that she's just a bad planner and that's all, focusing intense attention on the information that bears your theory out, ignoring or demanding the info and the potential of info that might negate it. And despite your efforts to course-correct, you still are.

But, every person has their own concerns, their own risks, and their own pleasures. That's why budgeting is very personal, and not something that, outside of a general level, can be done in great detail.

SO very personal, you're engaging in detailing a stranger's expenses online in an attempt to prove a point of yours?

Well, budgeting isn't emotional. It's survival. And, if she's not able to live on her wage, then...well...she should be near death.

Wow, you're right, budgeting IS personal. The funny thing is, why are YOU taking HER expenses so personally?

She isn't, and her children are not living in anything close to poverty. They are living pretty much like many middle class lived 30 years ago in the US. To suddenly define that as "poverty" because of some random opinion, is stupidity.

Oy.

Yes, I do. And, I have already.

Really? You sat down with her when you did her expenses with her? What's she like?

No, Pell (probably the only grant she'd qualify for before she was granted free tuition) doesn't require repayment. No grant does, but Pell is the most common. However, you ignored the rest of my statement. Predatory student loans. With that, I don't mean ALL student loans. I mean, specifically, private loans that or geared through local business institutions that target people like her.

But, you are good at ignoring things.

Please see my earlier comment about you vigorously researching the info that supports your theory and ignoring that which might refute it, Ignorey Ignorington of the Cape Cod Ignoringtons.

She had over a decade, and 3 children to make that choice. You see it as judgement, I don't. She has a situation. I don't judge her for the situation she's in. There is no morality in play here.

You should read some of your prior posts and see if you still think you're not coming across as a tad judgmental

Life is "scary"...no one said it isn't. However, the options available to you can only expand, if you invest in yourself. And that means stop being a slave. And that includes being a slave to education and being a slave to whatever employers "decide" to give you.

Hence her desire to become an RN?

The only way you get over the monster is by facing it up front, and tackling the situation.

Hence her attempts to get financial aid to become an RN?

If you sit there meekly and ask meekly, then you will ALWAYS be given meek results.

Hence her plan to keep trying to be an RN?

For the most part, she seems to have her situation under control, and on a positive track. But, that's not how many see it.

Certainly not you, all planning on how she can spend all that extra money you thought she had on big screen TVs and trips to WDW.

I'd be curious to see a follow up documentary in 20 years to see where she's at, and then again in 40.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find other people to judge while you wait.

 

[slappy magoo]

Right now there are about 20K jobs on USAjobs.gov,


You make a lot of really good points and I always describe myself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal in other words a libertarian. I think we will not see any REAL change in DC until we really clean house on BOTH sides of the aisle.

There's surely dead weight on both sides of the political spectrum. The problem is different people have different opinions on who the dead weights are. Or they take the approach that they're ALL bums and ALL need to be thrown out. Or worse, they decide that the entire process is so tainted, they won't bother to vote, which pretty much ensures more dead weight gets elected. That's as polite and non-partisan a way as I can put it.

 

[Nubs70]

I think government should get out of the school loan business completely. Put in the control of the banks. So not only will you have to prove academic suitability through ACT/SAT but also financial suitability of the sought out degree. Assuming academic suitability, Funds for STEM degrees would be readily available while funds for underwater basket weaving would not be available. This would prevent the funding of worthless degrees and the financial burden placed on those that pursue worthless skills.

 

[njDizFan]

I think government should get out of the school loan business completely. Put in the control of the banks. So not only will you have to prove academic suitability through ACT/SAT but also financial suitability of the sought out degree. Assuming academic suitability, Funds for STEM degrees would be readily available while funds for underwater basket weaving would not be available. This would prevent the funding of worthless degrees and the financial burden placed on those that pursue worthless skills.

I understand that line of thinking but I always find it troubling when we see art on the chopping block. After all isn't that what makes life worth living. You may feel that you have to be an engineer to be a productive person in society but then where are you going to spend you money...food, entertainment, culture.

and not to sound like too much of a liberal( Somehow that is a bad word ) but often people who are more inclined towards the arts just plainly do not learn the same way. Right brain vs. left braining thinking is a real thing. So basing your college student loan application on how well you can do a math problem seems a little bit well...wrong

 

[ford91exploder]

There's surely dead weight on both sides of the political spectrum. The problem is different people have different opinions on who the dead weights are. Or they take the approach that they're ALL bums and ALL need to be thrown out. Or worse, they decide that the entire process is so tainted, they won't bother to vote, which pretty much ensures more dead weight gets elected. That's as polite and non-partisan a way as I can put it.

For the record I'm in the throw all the bums out side and do it on a regular basis, The Founders had a pretty good idea - Go to washington for a while and then come home. I have often thought that Congress should be like jury duty picked at random every two years and then you go back home.

Or perhaps a pool is picked at random and you vote for the people in the pool, The problem with the current system is that it attracts sociopathic personalities who want to RULE not SERVE.

 

[ford91exploder]

I understand that line of thinking but I always find it troubling when we see art on the chopping block. After all isn't that what makes life worth living. You may feel that you have to be an engineer to be a productive person in society but then where are you going to spend you money...food, entertainment, culture.

and not to sound like too much of a liberal( Somehow that is a bad word ) but often people who are more inclined towards the arts just plainly do not learn the same way. Right brain vs. left braining thinking is a real thing. So basing your college student loan application on how well you can do a math problem seems a little bit well...wrong

People studied the arts before there was public funding and if you cut it off people attracted to the arts will STILL study them however in this case instead of a Arts degree meaning that you had a 4 year party, It will mean you are TRULY dedicated to the arts and were willing to sacrifice to do so.

 

[MickeyisMyBestFriend]

Who wouldn't want a pay boost?

 

[Nubs70]

I understand that line of thinking but I always find it troubling when we see art on the chopping block. After all isn't that what makes life worth living. You may feel that you have to be an engineer to be a productive person in society but then where are you going to spend you money...food, entertainment, culture.

and not to sound like too much of a liberal( Somehow that is a bad word ) but often people who are more inclined towards the arts just plainly do not learn the same way. Right brain vs. left braining thinking is a real thing. So basing your college student loan application on how well you can do a math problem seems a little bit well...wrong

I see the art aspects you bring up and do struggle with that aspect. I used STEM curriculum only as an example. There should be some funding set aside for arts curriculum so maybe this is a purpose for the NEA. Where there would be a limited pool of funds for arts curriculum, I would envision a larger pool of funds for votech curriculum. So when little Jimmy is denied funding for an arts degree, however he could get funding for HVAC due to aptitude and demand for that skill set. Jimmy learns a skill set that provides in excess of a living wage. He is not saddled with debt he cannot pay back. The bank makes a return on their investment and is liable in the event of default. The government is not on the hook in the event of Jimmy defaulting.

 

[ford91exploder]

I see the art aspects you bring up and do struggle with that aspect. I used STEM curriculum only as an example. There should be some funding set aside for arts curriculum so maybe this is a purpose for the NEA. Where there would be a limited pool of funds for arts curriculum, I would envision a larger pool of funds for votech curriculum. So when little Jimmy is denied funding for an arts degree, however he could get funding for HVAC due to aptitude and demand for that skill set. Jimmy learns a skill set that provides in excess of a living wage. He is not saddled with debt he cannot pay back. The bank makes a return on their investment and is liable in the event of default. The government is not on the hook in the event of Jimmy defaulting.

This I agree with, I'd go further and say that we should set up a european style Apprenticeship program for those trades so the kids once they leave school they can REALLY DO those jobs they have their vocational training in.

And for those wanting a Arts degree once again european style where you audition or submit a portfolio of your work before you are allowed to compete for the arts funding.

No one is saying that you cannot pursue an Arts degree however it is unreasonable to expect public funding for it when there are other more critical needs and college funding is NOT a cornucopia.

 

[Nubs70]

Another aspect of this approach is that the private sector has a much better understanding than the government of what skill sets are and will be in demand. This understanding is by which the banks would decide what degrees/apprenticeships they would be willing to fund.

 

[njDizFan]

People studied the arts before there was public funding and if you cut it off people attracted to the arts will STIL
study them however in this case instead of a Arts degree meaning that you had a 4 year party, It will mean you are TRULY dedicated to the arts
and were willing to sacrifice to do so.

I get it, you're not a real artist unless you suffer. Heck art doesn't even need to be taught it should all be natural.

I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed? Are we talking all liberal arts studies. Or just fine art ? Are we talking art history with little vocational carreers except teaching and curatorships. Or graphic design which is a skill set that is very handy in many many careers?

Anyway I would put an MFA up against most other degrees in terms of actual hours required for completion. It is a 60 credit terminal degree.

Agreed some majors are more strenuous. But im sure you can see just ad many business majors partying next to that photography student

 

[ford91exploder]

I get it, you're not a real artist unless you suffer. Heck art doesn't even need to be taught it should all be natural.

I'm not sure exactly what is being discussed? Are we talking all liberal arts studies. Or just fine art ? Are we talking art history with little vocational carreers except teaching and curatorships. Or graphic design which is a skill set that is very handy in many many careers?

Anyway I would put an MFA up against most other degrees in terms of actual hours required for completion. It is a 60 credit terminal degree.

Agreed some majors are more strenuous. But im sure you can see just ad many business majors partying next to that photography student

Fine Arts/Art History is what I have been thinking of Music/Dance/'Interpretative Arts and of course the canonical basket weaving.

Illustration and Graphic design have long had vocational schools and the fine arts people despise them for 'selling out'

I've been guilty of painting with too broad a brush here, Photography has always been a passion of mine I've even had my work published - But in the financial aid desert of the 1980's I decided to use my engineering skills instead of my artistic talents because one can make a modest living being an engineer.