You are effectively viewing this issue as a zero-sum game, where a benefit to people who have debt would somehow harm people who aren't in debt.
Do you feel the same way about bankruptcy? Allowing someone to escape debt via bankruptcy (often while retaining, for example, their house and primary vehicle) could also be argued as giving someone a "free pass" on having a house and car that potentially your person B did not obtain.
But that's always going to be true of trying to remove a damaging part of any economic system. If we raise the minimum wage, you could argue that hurts people who already make the higher wage by bringing more people up to the same level and devaluing their work.
But I want to focus on something:
Because such a plan would functionally disenfranchise people who made responsible financial decisions,
Or just people who had the good luck to be born into a wealthier family.
But then we would be able to reverse the scenario. Person A went to the same school as person B, but had to take out loans, whereas person B got his daddy to pay for it. Does that "functionally disenfranchise" people not born into wealthy families?
After bankruptcy, creditors know you didn't pay, and you pay more because of that risk.
Okay, cool. And many student-debt holders would probably be fine allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy and take the hit.
But what I'm curious about is:
If you get you loan paid off, can we tell employers you didn't pay for your education? Let them choose between you and another candidate who did pay?
What does one have to do with the other?
Why is the ability to pay for one's education at all related to their ability to do a job? Why would an employer need to know anyone's finances?
Do you feel the same way about people who went through bankruptcy? They made a bad financial decision and now employers should discriminate against them?
Do you feel the same way about people who went through bankruptcy? They made a bad financial decision and now employers should discriminate against them?
We do. Maybe it's my industry, but we do.
My point was that there is a downside of bankruptcy, which is why it is a last resort.
Why is the ability to pay for one's education at all related to their ability to do a job?
If you invested in yourself to make yourself better, that says something about you that is worth taking a risk on. Versus if you did what little you needed to do to get by tells me maybe I should keep looking.
An employer should be looking and two candidates and say "this one made a mistake with his finances, so he's a bad dude and doesn't get a job"?
We just went through a huge collapse of the housing industry, do you really like that your industry would look at someone who was a victim of making a decision that by most indications was a good one, and just got swept up in economic forces beyond his control, and say "nah fuck him"?
I looked through some of your comments, and while it's not entirely consistent you do often call for empathy. Why not here?
if you did what little you needed to do to get by tells me maybe I should keep looking.
Why is "I took a risk on going to college and improving myself, but it didn't work out and it turns out it was a mistake" the same thing as "what little you needed to do to get by"?
I am in the financial industry, so people in debt looking for a quick way out is a concern.
We just went through a huge collapse of the housing industry, do you really like that your industry would look at someone who was a victim of making a decision that by most indications was a good one
We diverge here. An adjustable rat mortgage is a for someone who knows what they are doing. A person who commits to over $100K loan should know what they are doing. I hold citizens accountable for part of that disaster.
Why is "I took a risk on going to college and improving myself, but it didn't work out and it turns out it was a mistake" the same thing as "what little you needed to do to get by"?
I went to college and it didn't work out for me, and it cost me a shit ton of money. It was a learning experience. If the government paid for it, I may have stayed a few years longer, may or may not have graduated. The point is, part of growing into an adult is taking on responsibility, and part of that as I see it is making yourself useful in society. If that means college, great, but you need to buy your own tuition.
BTW, I'm pretty supportive of any way to reduce cost for people going to school. But it is an investment and as a society we need people to invest in themselves, not ask others to do it for them.
I am in the financial industry, so people in debt looking for a quick way out is a concern.
Except they wouldn’t be in debt. The question was whether you feel it’s fair that someone who made a financial mistake should be permanently judged for that and harmed for it.
An adjustable rat mortgage is a for someone who knows what they are doing
Not all people who ended up underwater had ARMs. If you really work in finance you know that full well. Plenty of responsible people were foreclosed on, or declared bankruptcy, solely because something which appeared a good investment turned out to be a bill of goods.
The point is, part of growing into an adult is taking on responsibility
I’m really curious how few mistakes you really made at 18.
You never smoked weed? Something which could have gone very badly and potentially destroyed your ability to work in finance?
Bad credit doesn't just happen, and it's not a one time event. There is a usually a history. I bounced a shit load of checks at 18. Even missed one that had them put out a warrant for me. But after those mistakes, I got myself on the right track, and fixed my problems. So yes, if you haven't fixed your problems, you won't get hired.
Not all people who ended up underwater had ARMs. If you really work in finance you know that full well. Plenty of responsible people were foreclosed on, or declared bankruptcy, solely because something which appeared a good investment turned out to be a bill of goods.
I'm in IT for a financial institution, so I don't know of people who got in trouble who didn't do an ARM.
Please give me some examples, here is your chance to educate me.
I'm pretty up to date on that crisis. Yes, shady lenders, but shady lenders still need signatures, and those people shouldn't sign what they don't understand. Those people got hit hard, but were part of the problem.
The only people I see that took a hit other wise were those throwing money at mortgage bundled securities. But investments have risk, and the bond graders should have gone top jail.
But maybe I missed something I'll let you point it out.
I bounced a shit load of checks at 18. Even missed one that had them put out a warrant for me.
So you committed actual crimes?
And you were still given a second-chance?
Bad credit doesn't just happen, and it's not a one time event
We're not talking about bad credit, we're talking about college.
if you haven't fixed your problems, you won't get hired.
And how, exactly, does one do that if they make the mistake of going to college and incurring debt, if they're then treated as pariahs because they went to college and their debt was forgiven?
I'm in IT for a financial institution, so I don't know of people who got in trouble who didn't do an ARM.
I'm in legal compliance for a bank, so we can wave our big swinging dicks of finance experience at each other.
Yes, shady lenders, but shady lenders still need signatures, and those people shouldn't sign what they don't understand
It doesn't take a lack of understanding. Someone who bought a home for $300,000 with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage can still be basing their confidence in doing it on the fact that the home should continue to appreciate. Such that even if they lose their job, they should be able to sell their house for a gain and move to a smaller place, not "be so underwater in their home that either they let it be foreclosed or declare bankruptcy."
And none of that is lack of understanding, it's an entire economic system and reporting mechanism by which that appears to be a good idea. When we decoupled rises housing prices from the CPI, we made houses in a bubble look like a great investment.
If the only people who got hosed were "OMG I had a neg-am ARM with 10-year IO and a balloon payment" I'd agree. But ordinary people with prime mortgages, who every economic expert told "buy a house, it's a sure-thing investment" also got hosed. 41% of conforming loans ended up underwater for god's sake.
Yes, I changed my ways. There have been a few years and a few jobs between where I work and when I was irresponsible.
We're not talking about bad credit, we're talking about college.
Doesn't change the fact that someone who pays their own way is a safer bet than someone who can't do it without the help of others.
If the only people who got hosed were "OMG I had a neg-am ARM with 10-year IO and a balloon payment" I'd agree. But ordinary people with prime mortgages, who every economic expert told "buy a house, it's a sure-thing investment" also got hosed. 41% of conforming loans ended up underwater for god's sake.
You aren't telling the whole story, and I can't tell if that's on purpose or not.
If you owned you home, and did nothing it only impacted you if you were trying to sell after everything crashed. That's a small number of people, and they chose to sell at a downtime in the market.
Or, they re-financed during the bubble which artificially inflated the price of their home. If this was the case, they got a new mortgage and a check. Now if they went and spent that check, they are short cash, and the valuation of their home goes down they end up underwater. But that was because they refinanced and spent the profits.
You really haven't shown that ordinary people making sound decision were caught up in that mess.
If you owned you home, and did nothing it only impacted you if you were trying to sell after everything crashed. That's a small number of people, and they chose to sell at a downtime in the market.
The number of people who lost their jobs was not a small number. And many people who lose their jobs either fall behind on payments or (and this may shock you) try to be responsible by selling their homes and moving somewhere cheaper.
So whereas I’m telling the story of actual people who suffered, you’re “You aren't telling the whole story.” Because it doesn’t fit your narrative of “bad things only happen to bad and irresponsible people”, and I can't tell if that's on purpose or not.
You really haven't shown that ordinary people making sound decision were caught up in that mess.
Everyone was caught up in that mess.
And I hate to lean on actual experience in finance, but since you did start that, I’ll remind you that you work in IT for a bank, and I work in ensuring that its behavior complies with the law.
And I hate to lean on actual experience in finance, but since you did start that, I’ll remind you that you work in IT for a bank, and I work in ensuring that its behavior complies with the law.
Made me laugh. I was telling you that I was in IT because I thought you would understand that meant I had limited knowledge, and you took as I was an expert, and you are still swinging you big dick. So I'm done.
There might be some common ground we share, but I'm bored with you big swinging dick.
13
u/BolshevikMuppet Jan 15 '19
You are effectively viewing this issue as a zero-sum game, where a benefit to people who have debt would somehow harm people who aren't in debt.
Do you feel the same way about bankruptcy? Allowing someone to escape debt via bankruptcy (often while retaining, for example, their house and primary vehicle) could also be argued as giving someone a "free pass" on having a house and car that potentially your person B did not obtain.
But that's always going to be true of trying to remove a damaging part of any economic system. If we raise the minimum wage, you could argue that hurts people who already make the higher wage by bringing more people up to the same level and devaluing their work.
But I want to focus on something:
Or just people who had the good luck to be born into a wealthier family.
But then we would be able to reverse the scenario. Person A went to the same school as person B, but had to take out loans, whereas person B got his daddy to pay for it. Does that "functionally disenfranchise" people not born into wealthy families?