7 ms·

I'm sorry about your personal struggles, and hope things look up for you and your wife soon. There is something that millennials together can do differently, t

by mhneu 8y ago

I'm sorry about your personal struggles, and hope things look up for you and your wife soon. There is something that millennials together can do differently, though -- vote. Millenial turnout is terribly low in the US. https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/05/16/pew2ft_16.05.13_millennialvoters_turnout_custom-87c6d172f313bd060db92427b4f47e0dd2987783-s700-c85.png https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/05/16/pew2ft_16.05.13_... (So, yes, one party has made it a mission to suppress turnout; yes, Election Day is a work day, which makes it harder for working people to vote; etc. -- we can change all that, but first we have to work in the system as it is today.) And that means that boomers and the wealthy have had a much larger influence over society than young people. (The Piketty theory is that the West went through a few decades of stability after the 1970s and that made many people complacent, especially the young, allowing the wealthy and corporations to acquire power. Given the last two years, the time for complacency is ending.) In particular, a better social safety net and a better education cost and education loan system would make for a fairer playing field for all. The only way you and I in America are going to get that is if we all vote - especially young people. And in your particular case, the biggest travesty is the non-dischargeability of educational debt. That's a hard problem - both universities and the loan companies are at fault for lobbying for and setting up this system. But we need to fix it. Again sorry for your current situation and I hope it looks up soon.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nopriorarrests 8y ago
Well, government came up already with solution to "better education". It now holds like 90% of all student debt and 100K USD useless degrees are common. Point here, before voting you need figure out actual solution. Not sure if anyone you can vote for now has actual solution.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Here's a solution. Discharge student loan debt and directly fund public university budgets to cover tuition.
  - nopriorarrests 8y ago
    Yeah, and who you should vote for to get it done? Sorry to remind it, but US had 8 years of democratic president (and mostly democratic congress) and student debt exploded in size during the same time period. So, millenials voting for Obama were wrong? Who they should have voted instead?
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      Why would you think voting for a single solitary politician would solve it all?
    - jsoc815 8y ago
      > So, millenials voting for Obama were wrong? Hi, unfortunately, yes. I, like many others, wrote to him [and a few notable Democrat and Republican Senators who publicly champion(ed)] SL reform. My letter actually had supporting facts, and practical actionable policy suggestions. I heard back (directly) only from one Senator, a Republican, whose form letter was unrelated to SLs. Though I didn't receive a direct response from anyone in Obama's administration, shortly after I'd sent my letter, the administration suggested cutting the SL interest deduction, which was polar opposite of what I'd suggested. And as you probably know, during last year's tax reform debates, the Republicans picked up, but ultimately dropped, that very same idea of removing said deduction. There were some other policy changes that I saw effected after my letter that makes me certain that it was read and understood. Unfortunately, those changes, harmful to borrowers, were again the opposite of what I'd suggested. Given what I am reading in Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, and have read/heard elsewhere, I'm not all that surprised.[1] Young people will continue to be politically and financially expendable until they learn from history, organize themselves into strong blocks and directly involve themselves in the political process. Voting is merely a small part of participation. And I say that having been on the inside of the political machine. [1] http://ronsuskind.com/books/confidence-men/ http://ronsuskind.com/books/confidence-men/
roganartu 8y ago
> So, yes, one party has made it a mission to suppress turnout; yes, Election Day is a work day, which makes it harder for working people to vote; etc. -- we can change all that, but first we have to work in the system as it is today. This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most and enables those same people to influence the system further by making it difficult enough for others that they won't bother. When it's compulsory to vote, things like weekday voting stop happening because laws will be introduced making it illegal to prevent your employees from taking time off work to go vote, so naturally both employers and employees alike want weekend voting. Additionally, it incentivises the government to make voting accessible, because it is unreasonable for them to enforce voting via fines etc if it's not really possible for people to vote. When I moved to the US from Australia I heard stories from my new colleagues about people in poor neighbourhoods lining up literally all day just to maybe get to vote before the booth closed, while those in richer neighbourhoods had practically no line at their voting booths. This is not how democracy should work. Your "freedom to choose not to vote" only serves to hurt any other freedoms you may have had.
- rauhl 8y ago
  > This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most That doesn't sound unreasonable on the face of it, to be honest.
  - roganartu 8y ago
    Until you realise that those who care the most often hold extreme views and are the most outspoken even when representing a relative minority. Deeply conservative fundamentalist Christians, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers are some examples that come to mind.
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    A feature of current voting patterns because it takes place on a work day is that voting is dominated by 50+ people. The voice of those who are paid hourly or without flexible work schedules is not heard very proportionately. It's not that different from a poll tax or reading test or similar barriers to voting - those who care the most in order to spend time/money get to vote - are those reasonable as well? As someone who is over 50, I feel the current system is stupid. I vote from home using a mail in ballot but the ballot is several pages, often six pages long, and takes me an hour to fill out while I do research online, so someone doing it in person has to make a lot of time before or after work (polling places near their home).
dcosson 8y ago
> the biggest travesty is the non-dischargeability of educational debt There's no doubt that non-dischargeable student can be really rough for a lot of people. I'm not in insurance or anything, but it seems like if we just implemented the simplest fix, i.e. let people declare bankrupcy to forgive student loans, the math might just not pencil out to make it feasible to grant any student loans. For instance I couldn't take out an $80k loan to start a business with instead of getting a student loan, no bank would give it to me. So there's definitely something special about student loans and the way in which they're so easy to get without needing good credit or any collateral behind them. And if they could be forgiven by declaring bankruptcy, what would stop lots of people from doing that right after they graduate? For a lot of young people (including myself at that age), your total cumulative assets are worth approximately nothing when you graduate. And it's not like you're gonna be able to buy a house within 7 years of graduating anyway so the hit to your credit score of a bankruptcy might not be that bad. It really doesn't seem like there's a silver bullet solution to help people finance the massive cost of college easily. What's the best solution here? Is it possible to reduce the underlying cost structure of higher education enough to make a big enough difference?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > What's the best solution here? Let lenders vary interest rates by institution and major. Also, give lenders a choice: (a) loans dischargeable in court like any debt or (b) non-dischargeable loans where total payments in a calendar year are capped as a fraction of AGI. This combination incentivises lenders to communicate employment and wage information from the labor market to students deciding where to go for school and what to study.
  - derekp7 8y ago
    And it will at the same time vary the price of education based on financial post-graduation prospects. Have a shortage of teachers or social workers due to low salary? Well, the relevant degrees would only cost 10% of a STEM degree. I see this as a major win.
  - dcosson 8y ago
claydavisss 8y ago
Implicit in your post is a call for improved social programs, meanwhile the GP already stated he feels he is paying too much of his income in taxes. None of what you cite - affordable education, a better social safety net would directly benefit the GP at this point. Indeed, he would be the one paying for it.
- wmeredith 8y ago
  Improving social programs could be done without raising taxes.

by mhneu 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nopriorarrests 8y ago

Well, government came up already with solution to "better education". It now holds like 90% of all student debt and 100K USD useless degrees are common. Point here, before voting you need figure out actual solution. Not sure if anyone you can vote for now has actual solution.

dv_dt 8y ago
Here's a solution. Discharge student loan debt and directly fund public university budgets to cover tuition.
- nopriorarrests 8y ago
  Yeah, and who you should vote for to get it done? Sorry to remind it, but US had 8 years of democratic president (and mostly democratic congress) and student debt exploded in size during the same time period. So, millenials voting for Obama were wrong? Who they should have voted instead?
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    Why would you think voting for a single solitary politician would solve it all?
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    > So, millenials voting for Obama were wrong? Hi, unfortunately, yes. I, like many others, wrote to him [and a few notable Democrat and Republican Senators who publicly champion(ed)] SL reform. My letter actually had supporting facts, and practical actionable policy suggestions. I heard back (directly) only from one Senator, a Republican, whose form letter was unrelated to SLs. Though I didn't receive a direct response from anyone in Obama's administration, shortly after I'd sent my letter, the administration suggested cutting the SL interest deduction, which was polar opposite of what I'd suggested. And as you probably know, during last year's tax reform debates, the Republicans picked up, but ultimately dropped, that very same idea of removing said deduction. There were some other policy changes that I saw effected after my letter that makes me certain that it was read and understood. Unfortunately, those changes, harmful to borrowers, were again the opposite of what I'd suggested. Given what I am reading in Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, and have read/heard elsewhere, I'm not all that surprised.[1] Young people will continue to be politically and financially expendable until they learn from history, organize themselves into strong blocks and directly involve themselves in the political process. Voting is merely a small part of participation. And I say that having been on the inside of the political machine. [1] http://ronsuskind.com/books/confidence-men/ http://ronsuskind.com/books/confidence-men/

roganartu 8y ago

> So, yes, one party has made it a mission to suppress turnout; yes, Election Day is a work day, which makes it harder for working people to vote; etc. -- we can change all that, but first we have to work in the system as it is today. This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most and enables those same people to influence the system further by making it difficult enough for others that they won't bother. When it's compulsory to vote, things like weekday voting stop happening because laws will be introduced making it illegal to prevent your employees from taking time off work to go vote, so naturally both employers and employees alike want weekend voting. Additionally, it incentivises the government to make voting accessible, because it is unreasonable for them to enforce voting via fines etc if it's not really possible for people to vote. When I moved to the US from Australia I heard stories from my new colleagues about people in poor neighbourhoods lining up literally all day just to maybe get to vote before the booth closed, while those in richer neighbourhoods had practically no line at their voting booths. This is not how democracy should work. Your "freedom to choose not to vote" only serves to hurt any other freedoms you may have had.

rauhl 8y ago
> This is why non-compulsory voting hasn't ever made sense to me; it effectively biases the system towards those who care the most That doesn't sound unreasonable on the face of it, to be honest.
- roganartu 8y ago
  Until you realise that those who care the most often hold extreme views and are the most outspoken even when representing a relative minority. Deeply conservative fundamentalist Christians, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers are some examples that come to mind.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  A feature of current voting patterns because it takes place on a work day is that voting is dominated by 50+ people. The voice of those who are paid hourly or without flexible work schedules is not heard very proportionately. It's not that different from a poll tax or reading test or similar barriers to voting - those who care the most in order to spend time/money get to vote - are those reasonable as well? As someone who is over 50, I feel the current system is stupid. I vote from home using a mail in ballot but the ballot is several pages, often six pages long, and takes me an hour to fill out while I do research online, so someone doing it in person has to make a lot of time before or after work (polling places near their home).

dcosson 8y ago

> the biggest travesty is the non-dischargeability of educational debt There's no doubt that non-dischargeable student can be really rough for a lot of people. I'm not in insurance or anything, but it seems like if we just implemented the simplest fix, i.e. let people declare bankrupcy to forgive student loans, the math might just not pencil out to make it feasible to grant any student loans. For instance I couldn't take out an $80k loan to start a business with instead of getting a student loan, no bank would give it to me. So there's definitely something special about student loans and the way in which they're so easy to get without needing good credit or any collateral behind them. And if they could be forgiven by declaring bankruptcy, what would stop lots of people from doing that right after they graduate? For a lot of young people (including myself at that age), your total cumulative assets are worth approximately nothing when you graduate. And it's not like you're gonna be able to buy a house within 7 years of graduating anyway so the hit to your credit score of a bankruptcy might not be that bad. It really doesn't seem like there's a silver bullet solution to help people finance the massive cost of college easily. What's the best solution here? Is it possible to reduce the underlying cost structure of higher education enough to make a big enough difference?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> What's the best solution here? Let lenders vary interest rates by institution and major. Also, give lenders a choice: (a) loans dischargeable in court like any debt or (b) non-dischargeable loans where total payments in a calendar year are capped as a fraction of AGI. This combination incentivises lenders to communicate employment and wage information from the labor market to students deciding where to go for school and what to study.
- derekp7 8y ago
  And it will at the same time vary the price of education based on financial post-graduation prospects. Have a shortage of teachers or social workers due to low salary? Well, the relevant degrees would only cost 10% of a STEM degree. I see this as a major win.
- dcosson 8y ago

claydavisss 8y ago

Implicit in your post is a call for improved social programs, meanwhile the GP already stated he feels he is paying too much of his income in taxes. None of what you cite - affordable education, a better social safety net would directly benefit the GP at this point. Indeed, he would be the one paying for it.

wmeredith 8y ago
Improving social programs could be done without raising taxes.