11 ms·

It reads like the guy had the ability to pay off the debt, but left a job he didn't like. I feel like he made a mistake going into a field he didn't like or jus

by anoxor 7y ago

It reads like the guy had the ability to pay off the debt, but left a job he didn't like. I feel like he made a mistake going into a field he didn't like or just started at a bad company and could have used those skilled he borrowed to get to pay it off and made a decision not to. The student loan situation isn't great, but this doesn't seem better. If this becomes common, so will having to secure loans against likely the assets of your family, which a lot of people don't have that as an option. The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means.

RandomInteger4 7y ago
That would be a good thing, not a bad thing. It would force colleges to conform to the rules of capitalism, making the market for education sane again. Student loans should not be handed out as easily as they currently are.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  The problem is that, trades aside, higher education is a must for earning money that one can actually live on. The US needs public funding for universities. It's not impossible - Germany's universities are all free of charge, most even for foreigners.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Attending a state university as a resident is actually well within reach for almost everyone. And people who can’t afford it usually qualify for financial aid and grants. The problem is that too many people overspend on higher education. And most people are only able to do this with access to humungous student loans.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    Right, the problem is higher education is required. Reform secondary education so higher education is not required, and only fund public institutions that give people additional skills to help 'live on.' As long as public money is subsidizing 4 years of 'drama camp' or whatever it those kids do, we should be investing in people that want to do actual work for a living.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The U.S. spends basically the same amount of public money on universities as Germany: https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-educati.... 0.91% of GDP versus 1.0% of GDP. That works out to about $550 per man, woman, and child in the U.S. versus $450 in Germany.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      How's the spread of spending per student for that money in each country I wonder (across subjects and colleges).
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Free of charge universities usually means stricter limits on access. Only some subset of people will essentially have the opportunity to attend.
    - paul_f 7y ago
      Even with free tuition, you still have to pay for living expenses, which are often much higher than tuition at an in-state school.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Yes, and this is why Sweden has about the same median student debt as the US ($25,000).
  - anoxor 7y ago
    A whole lot of bootcamp coders making a few hundred thousand may disagree with that or people who started profitable businesses without degrees.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > Student loans should not be handed out as easily as they currently are. I would argue that 'student loans should not be handed out as equally as they currently are' -- in that loan terms are independent of major selection (and career prospects). By all means continue to mandate that loan terms be familial-wealth blind (and institution-blind), but allow lenders to differentiate with rates on the basis of area of degree earned. It's a lagging indicator, but it's insane that we specifically break market signals between the actual job market and the primary methods by which students finance their education. If someone wants to get a degree in medieval plant philosophy, then they can bloody well self-finance that.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > By all means continue to mandate that loan terms be familial-wealth blind (and institution-blind), Student loan terms (private and public) are blind to neither of these factors. > but allow lenders to differentiate with rates on the basis of area of degree earned. Lenders outside of the federally guaranteed system are allowed to do this, as well as to consider all of the other factors you suggest loans should “remain” blind to. The only lender inside the federally-guaranteed system is the federal government itself (and it is also not blind to the factors you suggest it should remain blind to, since both are factors already.) Further any argument for major sensitivity is a much stronger argument for much additional weighting by institution, since all the market factors that apply to majors also apply to institutions.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      (Clarification: I'm talking about the US loan program) > Student loan terms (private and public) are blind to neither of these factors. They are negatively blind, in that I cannot charge someone with family wealth in excess of $1M a lower rate than someone with negative family wealth. Correct me if I'm wrong. > Lenders outside of the federally guaranteed system I'm limiting these statements to the federal loan system, because that where a huge chunk of debt is created. > The only lender inside the federally-guaranteed system is the federal government itself Apparently this was changed in 2010? Prior to that, this was absolutely not the case via FFELs [1]. > and it is also not blind to the factors you suggest it should remain blind to, since both are factors already See clarification about positive vs negative blinding. > Further any argument for major sensitivity is a much stronger argument for much additional weighting by institution, since all the market factors that apply to majors also apply to institutions. Not intrinsically. The problem with allowing rate sensitivity is making it outcome-sensitive while avoiding it becoming pre-existing wealth-sensitive. I think everyone would feel it's unfair if Harvard loans charged 2% interest, while Community College loans charged 25%, because the acceptance demographics and underlying default rates supported that difference. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loan_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loa...
Waterluvian 7y ago
> I feel like he made a mistake going into a field he didn't like Figure out how to know for sure what you want to do for a living and write us all a book about it.
- anoxor 7y ago
  Or just work a job you don't like for a few years. I have a few lawyer friends doing that now and have tons of options open to them now they they are debt free and have a massive income. A few made transitions to careers they liked after not liking work for a time.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    It is not in fact as easy as you think, or as it used to be, to get a high-paying job out of law school, such that you can pay off your student loans ($200-300K is not unusual) in only a few years and have a 'massive income'. I know people out of law school who DO want to be lawyers, have lawyer jobs, and are struggling to keep up with their student loans. (No, they are not terrible incompetent lawyers). If you are a Harvard grad working at a top tier firm, that may not apply. But lots of people are making only $60-$70K out of law school. With huge debt. If you want to work for government or non-profit, you'll make even less. It's going to take more than 'a few years' to pay off $300K of debt like that.
    - throw51319 7y ago
      Wow 70k, that is much lower than I thought. What's the salary trajectory for them? Like 3-5 years into the job?
      - heavyset_go 7y ago
        If you think 70k is low, I know people who went to law school and make much less.
      - meddlepal 7y ago
        If you're not on partner track at a good firm it doesn't grow that quickly. The friends and family I have that are lawyers and are 5 years and some change out have not cracked 100k yet except for one.
wvenable 7y ago
You're on Hacker News -- 99% of startups fail. Every person is just a one-man startup. He tried something, it didn't work out. If he was a company, nobody would bat an eye at bankruptcy.
- anoxor 7y ago
  I had to secure a summer loan against my grandparents assests to graduate 6 months earlier because my parents didn't have the credit. It's likely if I had to secure my entire loan debt that I likely wouldn't have gotten a phd or finished college under different circumstances. Take this to it's conclusion and this guy is securing his loan against his parents house which gets repoed. A company's loan is frequently secured against the assets of the owner. The dog fish head brewing in the documentary on it secured his new building against his house, which he would lose if the factory went under. This guy sounded like he had the option to continue working in a high paying field and chose not to.
- joncp 7y ago
  Perhaps a better metaphor would be a startup entrepreneur that takes VC and then folds the company when he doesn't like it anymore. He'd be in pretty hot water for a stunt like that.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    It certainly depends on the context, but it's not unheard of for founders to realize their startup isn't experiencing hypergrowth and to shut down the company and return what's left of the money to investors. Usually investors are happy to get some money back versus none. Of course on the opposite end of the spectrum you have Adam Neumann, who engineered his way to being a billionaire with VC money for a company he seemed pretty happy to jettison once it was convenient to do so.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      > a company he seemed pretty happy to jettison once it was convenient to do so. He was forced out. This is not what the word "jettison" means
digsy 7y ago
>The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. Many students who accept these loans are 17-18 years old. Expecting children to make solid financial decisions regarding hundreds of thousands of dollars is optimistic at best.
- anoxor 7y ago
  If your 18, you have the ability to destroy or build up your life. At what age should someone be held to a 100k they took out in loans?
  - 2ion 7y ago
    Perhaps after 1-2 years of mandatory military or civil service. Experiences like that put things into quite a perspective. At least for me, going on to university straight from high school was the most illinformed thing I ever did. Thing is, most people can't afford a gap year.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      > Thing is, most people can't afford a gap year. Get a job. There, now you can afford a gap year if you save. Spend six months working all the hours you can get, whether it’s in McDonald’s or something better and if you continue to live like a high school student you can absolutely afford six months in South or Southeast Asia.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Get a job. There, now you can afford a gap year Youth unemployment, even at the lowest it's been in more than 50 years and even with the low labor force participation rate among youth, is still quite high. So “get a job” is far from automatic with desire. > if you continue to live like a high school student you can absolutely afford six months in South or Southeast Asia. But living like a high school student means “fully supported by your parents in their home”, which, if your parents aren't in South or Southeast Asia, you probably can't manage there. Aside from (and because of) that, high school students tend not to have a particularly spartan lifestyle, actually it's often quite profligate, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
quadrifoliate 7y ago
> The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. Also, after thinking about it a little, your argument of "they should have been smart enough" pretty much applies to every bankruptcy situation. Homeowners, many of whom are much older than these students should be smart enough to know what they are getting into with that mortgage, et cetera.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. If they aren't responsible enough to take out that loans then they probably shouldn't have the ability to take out these loans. That would make it simple, right? If you're poor and can't get scholarships then no college for you. At some point, we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions. Otherwise we're going to lose a lot of privileges in society.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    This is a country where people are able to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and kill or be killed in a foreign war before we trust them to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and before we trust them to rent a car. And the same country's legal system will treat a preteen child as an adult and sentence them to life in prison (Lionel Tate, 2001). Maybe "at some point we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions" but the first step might be figuring out an actual age where they can be held accountable. Perhaps the youngest age someone should be able to take out student loans is 21, when they're able to buy a pack of smokes and a case of beer? Or maybe 12, when they're responsible enough to serve life in prison?
    - Godel_unicode 7y ago
xupybd 7y ago
Modern concepts of debt seem to incorporate some risk to the lender. That gives some incentive to the lender to only lend to good investments. Student loans don't seem to have that level of risk for the lender. One of the reasons colleges cost so much is because they can. As long as there is easy debt people will take it. As long as they take it they can pay high tuition fees. If they money dries up collages will have to reduce costs and lower fees.
jnwatson 7y ago
The average 18-year-old entering college has no idea what $70k a year is. Many of them have no idea what occupation to pursue, or if it even suits them. Many folks rou the kids taking on too much student debt, but I bet there are thousands more kids, like me, that didn't go to the prestigious school because there was no way I could fathom paying $200k (a while ago) in college tuition.
- ptah 7y ago
  it's almost like it should be a filter in job interviews. anyone that takes on that amount of debt at such a young age is clearly unsuitable
grumple 7y ago
> a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. It shouldn't mean debt until death. Corporations are full of smart people, including dedicated finance professionals, yet they can discharge debt in bankruptcy. And let's be clear: a college student still has a developing brain and intellect, and they are quite naive and unwise, and should be protected by the law from lending predation.
ChrisLomont 7y ago
>The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory Average 2019 college tuition and fees for public in-state is $10k. Private averages $36k/year. Local and community colleges are often cheaper than both these. There's plenty of affordable colleges around. Where does the 70k come from? https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-co...
- qntty 7y ago
  $70k is total expenses for most 4-year residential universities. E.g. https://student-accounts.yale.edu/tuition-and-fees https://student-accounts.yale.edu/tuition-and-fees [yes, this is typical even for schools less elite than Yale]

by anoxor 7y ago

RandomInteger4 7y ago

That would be a good thing, not a bad thing. It would force colleges to conform to the rules of capitalism, making the market for education sane again. Student loans should not be handed out as easily as they currently are.

mschuster91 7y ago
The problem is that, trades aside, higher education is a must for earning money that one can actually live on. The US needs public funding for universities. It's not impossible - Germany's universities are all free of charge, most even for foreigners.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Attending a state university as a resident is actually well within reach for almost everyone. And people who can’t afford it usually qualify for financial aid and grants. The problem is that too many people overspend on higher education. And most people are only able to do this with access to humungous student loans.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  Right, the problem is higher education is required. Reform secondary education so higher education is not required, and only fund public institutions that give people additional skills to help 'live on.' As long as public money is subsidizing 4 years of 'drama camp' or whatever it those kids do, we should be investing in people that want to do actual work for a living.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The U.S. spends basically the same amount of public money on universities as Germany: https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-educati.... 0.91% of GDP versus 1.0% of GDP. That works out to about $550 per man, woman, and child in the U.S. versus $450 in Germany.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    How's the spread of spending per student for that money in each country I wonder (across subjects and colleges).
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Free of charge universities usually means stricter limits on access. Only some subset of people will essentially have the opportunity to attend.
  - paul_f 7y ago
    Even with free tuition, you still have to pay for living expenses, which are often much higher than tuition at an in-state school.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Yes, and this is why Sweden has about the same median student debt as the US ($25,000).
- anoxor 7y ago
  A whole lot of bootcamp coders making a few hundred thousand may disagree with that or people who started profitable businesses without degrees.
ethbro 7y ago
> Student loans should not be handed out as easily as they currently are. I would argue that 'student loans should not be handed out as equally as they currently are' -- in that loan terms are independent of major selection (and career prospects). By all means continue to mandate that loan terms be familial-wealth blind (and institution-blind), but allow lenders to differentiate with rates on the basis of area of degree earned. It's a lagging indicator, but it's insane that we specifically break market signals between the actual job market and the primary methods by which students finance their education. If someone wants to get a degree in medieval plant philosophy, then they can bloody well self-finance that.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > By all means continue to mandate that loan terms be familial-wealth blind (and institution-blind), Student loan terms (private and public) are blind to neither of these factors. > but allow lenders to differentiate with rates on the basis of area of degree earned. Lenders outside of the federally guaranteed system are allowed to do this, as well as to consider all of the other factors you suggest loans should “remain” blind to. The only lender inside the federally-guaranteed system is the federal government itself (and it is also not blind to the factors you suggest it should remain blind to, since both are factors already.) Further any argument for major sensitivity is a much stronger argument for much additional weighting by institution, since all the market factors that apply to majors also apply to institutions.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    (Clarification: I'm talking about the US loan program) > Student loan terms (private and public) are blind to neither of these factors. They are negatively blind, in that I cannot charge someone with family wealth in excess of $1M a lower rate than someone with negative family wealth. Correct me if I'm wrong. > Lenders outside of the federally guaranteed system I'm limiting these statements to the federal loan system, because that where a huge chunk of debt is created. > The only lender inside the federally-guaranteed system is the federal government itself Apparently this was changed in 2010? Prior to that, this was absolutely not the case via FFELs [1]. > and it is also not blind to the factors you suggest it should remain blind to, since both are factors already See clarification about positive vs negative blinding. > Further any argument for major sensitivity is a much stronger argument for much additional weighting by institution, since all the market factors that apply to majors also apply to institutions. Not intrinsically. The problem with allowing rate sensitivity is making it outcome-sensitive while avoiding it becoming pre-existing wealth-sensitive. I think everyone would feel it's unfair if Harvard loans charged 2% interest, while Community College loans charged 25%, because the acceptance demographics and underlying default rates supported that difference. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loan_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loa...

Waterluvian 7y ago

> I feel like he made a mistake going into a field he didn't like Figure out how to know for sure what you want to do for a living and write us all a book about it.

anoxor 7y ago
Or just work a job you don't like for a few years. I have a few lawyer friends doing that now and have tons of options open to them now they they are debt free and have a massive income. A few made transitions to careers they liked after not liking work for a time.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  It is not in fact as easy as you think, or as it used to be, to get a high-paying job out of law school, such that you can pay off your student loans ($200-300K is not unusual) in only a few years and have a 'massive income'. I know people out of law school who DO want to be lawyers, have lawyer jobs, and are struggling to keep up with their student loans. (No, they are not terrible incompetent lawyers). If you are a Harvard grad working at a top tier firm, that may not apply. But lots of people are making only $60-$70K out of law school. With huge debt. If you want to work for government or non-profit, you'll make even less. It's going to take more than 'a few years' to pay off $300K of debt like that.
  - throw51319 7y ago
    Wow 70k, that is much lower than I thought. What's the salary trajectory for them? Like 3-5 years into the job?
    - heavyset_go 7y ago
      If you think 70k is low, I know people who went to law school and make much less.
    - meddlepal 7y ago
      If you're not on partner track at a good firm it doesn't grow that quickly. The friends and family I have that are lawyers and are 5 years and some change out have not cracked 100k yet except for one.

wvenable 7y ago

You're on Hacker News -- 99% of startups fail. Every person is just a one-man startup. He tried something, it didn't work out. If he was a company, nobody would bat an eye at bankruptcy.

anoxor 7y ago
I had to secure a summer loan against my grandparents assests to graduate 6 months earlier because my parents didn't have the credit. It's likely if I had to secure my entire loan debt that I likely wouldn't have gotten a phd or finished college under different circumstances. Take this to it's conclusion and this guy is securing his loan against his parents house which gets repoed. A company's loan is frequently secured against the assets of the owner. The dog fish head brewing in the documentary on it secured his new building against his house, which he would lose if the factory went under. This guy sounded like he had the option to continue working in a high paying field and chose not to.
joncp 7y ago
Perhaps a better metaphor would be a startup entrepreneur that takes VC and then folds the company when he doesn't like it anymore. He'd be in pretty hot water for a stunt like that.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  It certainly depends on the context, but it's not unheard of for founders to realize their startup isn't experiencing hypergrowth and to shut down the company and return what's left of the money to investors. Usually investors are happy to get some money back versus none. Of course on the opposite end of the spectrum you have Adam Neumann, who engineered his way to being a billionaire with VC money for a company he seemed pretty happy to jettison once it was convenient to do so.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    > a company he seemed pretty happy to jettison once it was convenient to do so. He was forced out. This is not what the word "jettison" means

digsy 7y ago

>The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. Many students who accept these loans are 17-18 years old. Expecting children to make solid financial decisions regarding hundreds of thousands of dollars is optimistic at best.

anoxor 7y ago
If your 18, you have the ability to destroy or build up your life. At what age should someone be held to a 100k they took out in loans?
- 2ion 7y ago
  Perhaps after 1-2 years of mandatory military or civil service. Experiences like that put things into quite a perspective. At least for me, going on to university straight from high school was the most illinformed thing I ever did. Thing is, most people can't afford a gap year.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > Thing is, most people can't afford a gap year. Get a job. There, now you can afford a gap year if you save. Spend six months working all the hours you can get, whether it’s in McDonald’s or something better and if you continue to live like a high school student you can absolutely afford six months in South or Southeast Asia.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Get a job. There, now you can afford a gap year Youth unemployment, even at the lowest it's been in more than 50 years and even with the low labor force participation rate among youth, is still quite high. So “get a job” is far from automatic with desire. > if you continue to live like a high school student you can absolutely afford six months in South or Southeast Asia. But living like a high school student means “fully supported by your parents in their home”, which, if your parents aren't in South or Southeast Asia, you probably can't manage there. Aside from (and because of) that, high school students tend not to have a particularly spartan lifestyle, actually it's often quite profligate, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

quadrifoliate 7y ago

> The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. Also, after thinking about it a little, your argument of "they should have been smart enough" pretty much applies to every bankruptcy situation. Homeowners, many of whom are much older than these students should be smart enough to know what they are getting into with that mortgage, et cetera.

Mirioron 7y ago
>Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. If they aren't responsible enough to take out that loans then they probably shouldn't have the ability to take out these loans. That would make it simple, right? If you're poor and can't get scholarships then no college for you. At some point, we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions. Otherwise we're going to lose a lot of privileges in society.
- freehunter 7y ago
  This is a country where people are able to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and kill or be killed in a foreign war before we trust them to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and before we trust them to rent a car. And the same country's legal system will treat a preteen child as an adult and sentence them to life in prison (Lionel Tate, 2001). Maybe "at some point we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions" but the first step might be figuring out an actual age where they can be held accountable. Perhaps the youngest age someone should be able to take out student loans is 21, when they're able to buy a pack of smokes and a case of beer? Or maybe 12, when they're responsible enough to serve life in prison?
  - Godel_unicode 7y ago

xupybd 7y ago

Modern concepts of debt seem to incorporate some risk to the lender. That gives some incentive to the lender to only lend to good investments. Student loans don't seem to have that level of risk for the lender. One of the reasons colleges cost so much is because they can. As long as there is easy debt people will take it. As long as they take it they can pay high tuition fees. If they money dries up collages will have to reduce costs and lower fees.

jnwatson 7y ago

The average 18-year-old entering college has no idea what $70k a year is. Many of them have no idea what occupation to pursue, or if it even suits them. Many folks rou the kids taking on too much student debt, but I bet there are thousands more kids, like me, that didn't go to the prestigious school because there was no way I could fathom paying $200k (a while ago) in college tuition.

ptah 7y ago
it's almost like it should be a filter in job interviews. anyone that takes on that amount of debt at such a young age is clearly unsuitable

grumple 7y ago

> a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. It shouldn't mean debt until death. Corporations are full of smart people, including dedicated finance professionals, yet they can discharge debt in bankruptcy. And let's be clear: a college student still has a developing brain and intellect, and they are quite naive and unwise, and should be protected by the law from lending predation.

ChrisLomont 7y ago

>The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory Average 2019 college tuition and fees for public in-state is $10k. Private averages $36k/year. Local and community colleges are often cheaper than both these. There's plenty of affordable colleges around. Where does the 70k come from? https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-co...

qntty 7y ago
$70k is total expenses for most 4-year residential universities. E.g. https://student-accounts.yale.edu/tuition-and-fees https://student-accounts.yale.edu/tuition-and-fees [yes, this is typical even for schools less elite than Yale]