6 ms·
> She graduated in 1994 with more than $100,000 of debt. Within three years, she had one daughter, a surprise set of twins, and was earning less than $50,000 pe
by Irregardless 13y ago
> She graduated in 1994 with more than $100,000 of debt. Within three years, she had one daughter, a surprise set of twins, and was earning less than $50,000 per year.
3 kids while earning < $50k and trying to pay off > $100k in debt? If that's not the embodiment of America's dire lack of financial and family planning skills, then I don't know what is.
> "I’ve stressed to my daughter the importance of not borrowing any money."
Maybe she should just teach them to make responsible decisions instead? Borrowing money can be the right thing to do, but you need to carefully measure the costs and benefits.
Also, it would help not to have 3 kids when you're up to your ears in debt and only earning enough money to support yourself.
- modarts 13y agoExactly; how much of a "surprise" could the kids really have been?
- sliverstorm 13y agoWell, twins probably would have been a surprise. That's probably what the article was referring to; who expects twins?
- nickff 13y agoTwins are much more common among people using fertility drugs than the majority of the population; so if you are on those drugs, you might expect them. P.S. not trying to be snarky, just thought it was an interesting fact
- pestaa 13y agoTwins are unexpected, but surely they knew at least one child will be born? Even one extra is a huge commitment when you don't have the means.
- sliverstorm 13y agoRead the quote carefully. IMO it is not saying that the pregnancy was a surprise, but that twins was a surprise.
- pestaa 13y agoWhich is exactly my point.
- dagw 13y agoContraceptives sometimes fail. Sometimes you make a really bad judgement call. Sometimes the guy might be an asshole intentionally break/remove the condom. Sometimes bad things happen. Not everybody is comfortable with using abortions to deal with unplanned pregnancies even if it is the financially expedient thing to do.
- warmwaffles 13y ago> Also, it would help not to have 3 kids when you're up to your ears in debt if she fails to pay it off in her lifetime, do her children pick up the debt?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- aasarava 13y agoUh, no, in the US, debt does not pass on to children (unless the children co-signed the loan as adults.)
- sp332 13y agoPublic loans at least are cancelled when you die.
- warmwaffles 13y agoThanks for the info. I take it the private loans are made against the estate.
- yoloprocro 13y agoYour primary moral duty is to repay debt, eh? Unimportant things like "giving your life meaning" are unimportant.
- mc-lovin 13y agoAs a consumer your only duty is to obey they law. However, moral duty is relevant when it comes to how society should think about debt. Everyone has things they would like to do if they had more money. Society should not be arranged to give people a free pass just because they want to do something that requires money.
- rayiner 13y ago> However, moral duty is relevant when it comes to how society should think about debt. A debt is a contractual obligation and should be treated as such. One should not moralize contractual obligations. E.g. During the housing crisis, there was a lot of moralizing about homeowners walking away from their underwater mortgages. Moralizing about debt in that way is bullshit. When lenders make a loan secured by collateral, they take the risk of the value of that collateral dropping. There is absolutely nothing immoral about forcing a lender to eat a risk it knowingly on. Similarly, a corporation would not hesitate for a second, on moral grounds, to restructure its debts through bankruptcy, and neither should individuals. No moralizing needs to enter the equation. There is a penalty for declaring bankruptcy and failing to pay your debts, and that is future lenders being wary of lending you money. There is no need to add a moral dimension to the issue.
- mc-lovin 13y agoWhat I meant was that when designing rules for bankruptcy etc., but also for how education is funded and other things, society has high level goals which are guided by morality. My point was that when society considers what it's goals are, it should never be a goal that a person should be able to do things that "give their life meaning" when they can't afford them, because ultimately it is a person's own responsibility how they manage their money. So my post was aimed at people who thought "isn't it horrible that this woman can't do what she wants in life simply because she can't afford it"
- wonderzombie 13y agoI read this as: as much as possible, poor, unfortunate, or unlucky decisions you made in your early 20s should follow you around for the rest of your life (60+ yrs). By extension, having children is a privilege only for either those who were lucky enough to be born into wealth (i.e. no or minimal debt) or those who were lucky enough to make the correct decisions early in life.
- fargolime 13y agoI call her 50% responsible. The other half is the lender (gov't-backed entity) squeezing her at relatively high interest. They shouldn't have got so greedy. Now they'll get no more out of her, and of course taxpayers eat the loss.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoInterest rates were high back then. 8% is right on par with average student loan and mortgage loan interest rates of the late 90's. So she was not really getting squeezed. She was agreeing to what most people taking a loan were agreeing to at that time.