Americans Are Ignoring Their Student Loan Bills | Hacker News Reader

Americans Are Ignoring Their Student Loan Bills

news.bloomberglaw.com

53 pointspaulpauper138 comments

I think I was 47 when I finally paid mine off. My wife and I are doing everything we can to help our boys get out of college debt free. Starting your career at a net worth of zero is so much better than negative tens of thousands.

Between student loan and mortgage, I guess most people are destined to be in debt their entire life.

And that is for healthier individuals and not including other loans like car loans etc. God (if there is one) help with medical debt.

How do we expect young people to navigate this rigged system?

There's nothing wrong with being in debt per se, and in particular, (federal) student loans and mortgages are loans rigged in favor of the borrower.

Out of curiosity, how are federal student loans rigged in favor of the borrower? Asking for a friend.

They are issued for something [contingently] incredibly valuable that cannot be repossessed. They are also generally issued at a lower rate of interest with little collateral, in part due to the fact that they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and the resulting lower risk.

[edit: added "contingently" above. Some education programs have been found to be scams yet could be paid for with debt. I generally stand by the value of higher education and have found it to be a net benefit in my own life. The value has been strained as costs have shifted and the social contract is rearranged behind the backs of educators at all levels]

Education is a unique product, which I'd argue warrants favorable loan terms. Ignoring the inability to declare bankruptcy.

Even in non-scam programs, there's sometimes a massive amount of unknowable hazard on the path to a degree. And whether or not the degree is attained, the debt is still due.

In terms of hazard, I don't mean grades. Assume perfect grades. Especially in graduate programs, interpersonal politics can permanently wreck students who then have no effective recourse.

Examples and intricacies of what I'm trying to imply, aside, consider that education is a unique product that costs a lot of money but, in the process of attaining the product, you aren't treated as a customer but as if your position is precarious. Grades aside. Whatever specifics you might imagine, as they would vary, assume that the system is set up to protect the school that is collecting money. Not the person paying it.

Coming back around to my ultimate point about loan terms and risk.

Add “a global pandemic turning your university experience into Zoom-school with no reduction in tuition” to the list of possible hazards there.

I don't know how intentional your choice of words was, but describing education as a 'product' is a sad reminder of the current state of the world. It's as if every action and experience in life must be translated into money.

Thank you. I see your point.

Colleges, let alone Universities, used to be much fewer in number.

It used to be more widely known that the better Colleges, that is mostly the Ivy League and the top Liberal Arts colleges, were the only educational institutions that mattered in terms of imparting the vaguer yet more elite type of education of which you are likely thinking.

That is, the institutions who reliably facilitate the fuzzy process of becoming an educated person who can think like one. In the elite sense of these things.

What we've lost to an extent, in the multi-decade long taxpayer funded college degree bonanza, is that it is these elite institutions which are still seen as the only colleges that matter in the sense that I think that you are implying.

Other colleges are not truly valuable in this sense. So what are they good for? They are good for work training and certification pathways.

Universities have no problem charging obscene rates, which is hard cash, for something that they too would like to be only distastefully associated with money when debating the merits.

If it isn't translatable to money, then make it cheaper. Or keep the value firm and high, but also let's talk about what is being sold.

There's nothing rigged about loans being made for something that can't be repossessed and without collateral, there's a whole segment of the lending market for that (consumer lending, eg people take out loans to go on vacation). So absolutely nothing rigged about that. And those loans can still be discharged in bankruptcy. There's a government guarantee, but that's at least as much an advantage for the lender as for the borrower. The relatively low interest rate is a result of that, the loans aren't high risk for the underwriters. Government guarantees aren't unique to student loans either btw. The only thing that's really unique is that the loan can't be discharged, and that is very much a disadvantage for the borrower. So student loans are rigged against the students. No bank would want to make those loans under normal circumstances, so the government has rigged the game in their favor to entice them into the market.

The 'value' of the education can vary widely. Both in terms of value meaning the ability to use it as a credential for high-paying jobs, or in terms of the imparted skillset/knowledge that either make you a better person or enable you to achieve things like starting a business/inventing/etc.

I mean there is a HUGE spectrum here. And this means that there are many educations paid for with debt that are utterly useless (and therefore valueless) on both of these metrics. In other cases where an investment failed to this extent, you can declare bankruptcy. But not student loans! No no no. Those are forever. Hardly a favorable condition for the borrower.

I'm curious too. The rates aren't particularly generous. Okay, maybe they're a bit lower than the private markets might deliver given the rates of default. And maybe they let you study whatever you want. A private lender might insist on funding economically worthwhile degrees.

The real issue isn't the loan, but the entire system. The colleges have really jacked up the price of a degree. That's the real source of the problem. The interest rates are much closer to the market rates for capital.

I don't know that I'd use the word generous but they do have to advantages relative to other types of loans:

1. A relatively low rate for no collateral. It's never the 2.x% we got on mortgages during the brief window when mortgage rates are good, but compared to other rates you get showing up at a bank with no collateral, they're amazing.

2. Almost guaranteed approval for the above. Can you imagine an 18 year old walking into a bank with no credit history and collateral and walking out with a loan for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Sure, it may be a terrible idea, but a student loan is one of the easiest to get.

But it's for life right? You just can't bankrupt out of repayment, and since its in the US, missing a payment kill your credit score and prevent you from borrowing for anything.

In the 80s-90s in my country, we imported us-style loans, 'revolving credit', that were later called 'credits revolvers' because once you've taken one, a revolver was the only way out (not a joke, I know of 3 people who died in my village from this). We had to allow personal bankruptcy, and once the law was implemented and used, interest rates on those kind of loans doubled, and now they don't exist (although klarna and co are trying).

I could only imagine the 18 year old getting that loan with really onerous terms one way or another.

I think being in debt is too normalized. I know there are specific financial instruments, that if one is savvy, can use to be in debt but come out ahead. But for the average person, I do not think mortgages and loans should be so widespread. Schools don't teach the upper level of financial suave, and neither do most parents who aren't already wealthy.

We should normalize buying a home and owning it outright, even if it takes more up-front capital. It's something that should have been done when housing was cheaper, if you ask me. Me and my girlfriend watch a lot of House Hunters on HGTV and almost every episode concerns someone buying a house with the expectation of mortgaging, so that they can get a house beyond their immediate means.

The answer lies at Bogleheads.org.

It works.

Can’t squeeze a rock. If they can’t afford homes, and a good credit score is all that’s good for, why pay it? Wage garnishment is only a concern if you’re employed or make enough that it’s an option. No future, no payments.

Because you can't default on federal student loans. They garnish your wages. So just not paying isn't (currently) an option.

Sure, if never having any income and living off someone else is an option, you can do that.

The U.S. Department of Education can garnish up to 15% of your disposable pay (your net wages after legally required deductions like taxes). However, they must leave you with at least 30 times the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 per hour, or $217.50 per week.

So, 15% for the rest of your life or until you can leave the country and are beyond their reach (if an option) if you cannot afford to pay them off. The reality for many is they will never have enough income potential to pay off this debt, so the best course of action is to bail on it to optimize for quality of life if you’ll never be able to pay it back. The developed world is hungry for young, educated talent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/25/they-fled-the-country-to-esc...

Other country’s citizens leave to avoid military service, Americans leave to…avoid student loan repayments. That’s sad.

If people leave your country because it sucks, that’s a governance problem, not a citizen problem. People are mobile, if they have options and can do better, they should take them. Life is short and you only live once. Debt is just accounting, it is a shared delusion like a currency.

We set these citizens up to fail, and they’re the bad guys? Hardly. If you can escape the torment nexus, go, don’t look back. The torment nexus does not care about you. “The purpose of the system is what it does.”

We've got a lot of governance problems. Our system allows college prices to get really high, mostly because 18 year kids can sign up for these guaranteed loans. They don't know what they are signing up for, and colleges just want students in seats. People don't know if their major has good employment prospects, avg salary and how that will affect their loan repayment.

America chose to do this, banks make big money from the loans. Colleges make big money from students.

We have a similar system with medical care. We have regulatory capture of our medical system by the drug sellers, medical groups, etc. We pay way way way more than other countries with worse outcomes. And the reaction of half the country, the republicans, it is we'll fix this by eliminating a lot of coverage for poor people. Democrats try to control costs, cover more poor people, get on a better trajectory and it's demonzied as destroying democracy. Meanwhile, our recently passed BBB bill takes billions out of medicare, ie coverage for poor people, many of whom voted for Trump. This whole thing is disgusting. I'm angry because of the loss of potential here, just like for student debt.

My dad says colleges are corrupt because they "waste money on dei things" and that's why they have high costs (sadly not making this up). I try to explain college is not subsidized like it used to be when you went to college in the 60s. Similar thing with young people not affording housing, not having kids as much.

Oh boy it actually gets so much worse than you mention. If you have W2 income the cost of college is uniquely high to _you_. Very wealthy people who claim a business loss on their tax returns (through the massive spiderweb of itemized deductions) college, even ivy leagues, are free or almost free.

Bullshit. FAFSA covers assets as well as income so wealthy families with zero taxable income aren't getting need-based financial aid. Unless they lie on the application, which is criminal fraud.

Sorta. You exclude your primary residence, retirement funds, and any college savings accounts. I def know people with millions in the first two, retired, with their kids getting full rides and food stamps.

Not bullshit at all, there are loopholes riddled throughout the FAFSA system that allows assets to be tucked away out of scope. It’s not fraud, all completely legal and purpose-built to support the types of families who can afford a financial advisor on retainer.

I mean yeah, nothing about my statement disagrees with your point.

If people enter your country because it's the greatest country in the world, that's a governance success. The USA has it's share of problems and there are things we should do to reduce education costs. But overall the USA has a positive net migration rate with every other major country. People are coming here for a reason.

It's not sad, it's just a story. The number of Americans who actually emigrate to skip out on student debt is virtually zero.

like I'm sure it happens, but its trivial in terms of overall impact.

immigrating to another country, even as an American with an in-demand degree, is not easy.

Are you implying people are intentionally making less than $217 a week after taxes to avoid student debt payments?

That seems like a losing strategy, like shooting yourself in the face to save your foot.

I mean, there's millions of people with student debt - there's bound to be a few edge cases, but that really isn't relevant.

Are you also implying that it's non-edge case to say, oh, I'll just not pay my student loans and then leave my country?

Why would that be any more an option than people doing that for credit card debt?

I mean, sure, there's some very small percentage in some table factored into the interest rate.

Everyone else is either paying or getting their wages garnished (unless something in the future changes).

Your advice makes no sense. The developed world is not hungry for young "talent" who are only educated in fields with no market value. It's not as if German companies are desperate to hire a bunch of Americans with Art History degrees.

Just FYI, I stumbled upon this discussion the other day. This [1] is not the same source that was going around but states the same thing.

"STEM graduates, often hailed as the golden ticket to career success, are facing unemployment rates that might make you double-take. For instance, computer engineering majors are grappling with a 7.5% unemployment rate, while art history majors—yes, the ones often mocked for their “impractical” degrees—are sitting pretty at just 3%. What’s going on here?"

[1] https://capwolf.com/why-stem-grads-struggle-to-find-jobs-in-...

> Can’t squeeze a rock.

Sums it up well. What else could anybody possibly expect to happen? Wages have remained flat and/or negated by inflation, upward mobility has declined, and getting hired has become progressively more difficult. Good employment prospects remain in major metropolitan areas with high cost of living that eat paychecks whole. Where are the payments supposed to come from, exactly?

Paying taxes in America is like taking out a high interest loan on a used car. And not a particularly reliable one.

Why exactly am I paying taxes if college is still unaffordable and health insurance gets more expensive every year ?

I probably pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes and health insurance as I would in Germany, and get much less in return.

Unemployment insurance is a joke for higher income people.

College in particular is a bit complex. In my Mom's time State College was tuition free. The State of California, assuming it's residents are stupid, claims it's state schools are tuition free for residents. It's just a 15k fee !

https://admission.ucla.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

State College should be free. Particularly if you go to community college first, this is where the vast majority of students should start. Unless you get a full ride, it's better to drop out after 3 semesters of community vs 3 semesters at USC.

I think the 10k in forgiveness would of been reasonable. That was a very moderate plan, but it didn't happen.

Some type of long term reform is needed though. Maybe allow for a discharge after 15 years ?

Germany was able to get a free ride on US security guarantees for decades. Let's see what happens to their tax rates and social benefits now that they're finally being held accountable for complying with their NATO defense spending obligations.

While college tuition is generally cheaper in Germany, fewer students have the opportunity to attend. Most of them are steered to other tracks from as fairly early age. This model has some advantages but it limits opportunities for late bloomers.

I've heard this argument from conservatives a lot. The reason the rest of the world can have affordable health care and cheap or essentially free college is because America pays for their security.

How does that make any sense at all, why exactly do we need to have military bases in both Japan and Germany almost 80 years after the war ended. At this point why can't they just take care of themselves ?

Most countries offer trades as a respected alternative. Plus it's not like you can't start as a carpenter at 19, decide that you hate getting splinters and then go and study poetry later.

they also have strong unions to back those trades

As they should. They bailed banks in 2008. It's time for each citizen to equally get same level of tax money, amounts they deserve like bank owners and banks? why it was only possible for banks in 2008 and airlines in covid and PPE loans in Covid ?

The got equity and loans for the bailout, and made a lot of profit in the end

> The[sic] got equity and loans for the bailout, and made a lot of profit in the end

Your running to defend the bailout in this way reveals your bias.

The “they” in your defense is the government, who issued the loans, but the money was yours and mine. That is, they were public funds, but we, the public, failed to get anything tangibly out of this “profit”.

Quite the opposite, really.

The public took a great deal of the brunt of the failure of the economic tools these banks dreamed up in the form of foreclosures, wherein members of the public completely lost the only financial asset many possess.

Where do you think the repayments went?

I am unsure if you are clever enough to know one is unable to prove a negative and so avoided asking the OP to prove that the profits failed to reach the public, or if you are brain dead enough to think asking someone to prove your own point is a valid debate technique.

The OP made it clear that one way the profits failed to reach the public is clear in how so many lost their homes due to foreclosure.

So, whether you can 'prove' that the profits did reach the public it seems obvious that one way they failed to reach the public was in protecting the public from these bad financial contracts.

And an educated population is also an end goal “they” (we) should be happy paying for.

One cannot just look at the end result. It is also of relevance what risk was run. Nobody else was willing to lend those bank some more money. Guess why. If can play russian roulette and win 100000 dollars if you survive and it turns out that you survive and get 100000 dollars can we conclude from this that it was a wise decision?

> each citizen

Go lookup the lifetime earnings of college grads vs. HS-only. Then go lookup the demographics (especially economic) of student loan borrowers. Then go lookup home ownership rates of college grads vs. HS-only.

Those charts are interesting but better to look up by degree. Some degrees are not worth getting, some are only from a cheap school. And there are non degree jobs that pay very well - if you can get one.

My point was that student loan debtors are some of the least deserving of forgiveness, given that you have actual poor people struggling to make ends meet. At best you could make a case for the ones who never graduated or whose degree demonstrably hasn't improved their income or employability, or for making the loans dischargeable through bankruptcy.

But otherwise, it's just the college cohort voting themselves a handout they don't deserve, and it only deepens the degree divide: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/college-costs-working...

that's a bullshit answer, esp. because now trends suggest that even STEM graduates are struggling to find jobs.

you're blaming the victim when chances are every adult, website, school teacher, and guidance counselor told them to go to school. you expect an 18 year old to be able to predict, perfectly, job trends over the next 20 years? hell, that underwater basket weaving degree might actually be more useful than CS after Trump collapses the US economy and everyone is back to subsistence level crafting

Student loans are bailouts. The banks paid back their loans, why shouldn't students?

Various people in the government have been telling them for years that they'll be forgiven, and creating periods where they don't need to pay on them, what did people expect would happen?

https://archive.is/IBuzw

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has a great quarterly report on consumer credit [0], which the article briefly mentions. The latest report (Q1 2025) is here [1]. Student loan delinquencies shot up in the last ~2 quarters, which checks out with TFA. It's amazing how the age 50+ cohorts carry substantial student loan debt (slide 21). Is this original debt from their own time as students or is it, for lack of a better word, "second-hand" debt from supporting their children through school?

[0] - https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc/background.ht...

[1] - https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/Interactives/househo...

I have never understood why student loan debt is the only debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

It’s so insane that we expect 18 year olds, with brains still very much developing, to be able to make such a life-altering choice. Even though I myself understood this dynamic and decided to go to a state school with max 5k a year in tuition, I’ve never faulted others in the same situation that made less than ideal financial choices.

It’s really tragic that the US chooses to economically hamper so many people for money that is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Everyone deserves a chance at upward economic mobility, even if they made a bad choice to study something in college with bad job prospects at a high price tag.

It's not dischargeable because you can't seize the asset to resell in bankruptcy. The borrower would still retain the knowledge and connections

The loans would never be made under normal circumstances, so the govt. guarantees them. Part of that deal is that they must be paid back. Fair enough.

I agree that the whole system is poor, but not because the loans have to be paid back. A better system would be to take the money and instead build subsidized public colleges. Loans just fuel cost inflation, exactly as we've seen.

I think both the student and school should be on the hook for the loan. If the student is successful and does not pay, the school has legal rights. If the student is unsuccessful, then the student has legal rights. Both can sue each other for the full cost of the loan.

I still don’t know why there aren’t mass scale class action lawsuits against higher education for certain degrees.

The school isn't issuing the loans. How exactly do you think student loans work?

The banks should demand the school take responsibility as part of agreeing to the loan.

if the degree is for fun not a job that is fine - but as the taxpaper subsidising this all I only want to help those who will pay off my investment (or those who stasticaly would have had not whatever unexpected disaster happened)

You appear to have mistaken the purpose of a degree. It's not a job ticket. The school gave you what you paid for. Your transaction is complete.

Then they can buy insurance to cover that.

As a taxpayer I support degrees as job tickets. There are plenty of other things to do with a degree and I'm fine with them - but I have better use for my money than to give degrees to those who won't use them productively.

Planned economies have not been very successful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

The loans should not be given out, but also schools should not be charging the sort of tuition that they do for professional degrees, for professions that do not provide a salary that could pay for said tuition.

University degrees are not coupons for jobs, regardless of what someone told you when you were little. They never have been.

I’m specifically talking about professional, graduate degrees. Undergrad is a different matter.

A professional degree should give you an opportunity to increase your income in proportion to the cost of the degree. If that is not even close to being the case, as is what happens with a lot of degrees at elite schools, then I’d call that what it is — a scam.

The stats from the US FED show that people with professional degrees earn approximately 3x what people without degrees make, and people with undergrad degrees earn - on average - 2x what people without degrees make. Your hypothesis is somewhat flawed.

No, it’s not flawed and it’s not a hypothesis — I’m speaking from specific knowledge and experience regarding particular degrees.

Those averages include things like medical school for doctors and law school for lawyers. Tuition and expected salary are more aligned there.

Where tuition and salary are not aligned are fields like the humanities and social sciences. At top graduate schools for those fields you will have tuitions in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with average salary expectations far below that.

The only way that it makes financial sense to get a degree like that is if you are independently wealthy to begin with, but these schools will not tell you that and will cheerfully direct you to take on a ruinous amount of debt.

Why didn’t you start with that? You implied all professional degrees and then all graduate degrees and only mention humanities now? Forgive me for not catching your unstated assumptions. So who was under the impression they’d get rich with a graduate degree in social science or humanities? Seems like it has been common knowledge for many decades that humanities jobs pay considerably less than medicine or engineering, since long before today’s tuitions blew up. It’s been a cultural trope as long as I can remember that parents try to steer their kids away from humanities and towards higher paying fields. You could make a decent living in academia with humanities up to maybe 5 or 10 years ago, but I totally agree it’s getting a lot harder now. All tuition has blown up. Calling humanities graduate degrees a scam is a bit hyperbolic. Going to a state school won’t usually leave you with ruinous debt, that’s something that’s more likely to happen when choosing to go to a highly ranked big name school. Knowledge of outcomes in various fields is relatively well known and available information, and the amount of debt you end up with is mostly under your control. Sure some people might egg you on but nobody is hiding it or tricking you; most humanities graduate advisors I’ve met will tell you to study something else with very little prompting.

School should be provided, IMO, and nobody should be left with ruinous debt. This country can afford it, and money invested in education comes back in multiples in economic output, and yet we choose to keep education out of reach from many poor people and make it extra hard for those who can only just afford it. I’m sorry if you got stuck with a load of debt that’s difficult to manage. That sucks and it’s not fair.

I qualified my initial comment with "for professions that do not provide a salary that could pay for said tuition".

And my comment is not about people thinking they'd be getting rich -- it's about people making a (or what should be) reasonable assumption that they'd make enough money to pay off their tuition without lifelong financial struggle.

Yes, state schools are the smart choice here.

My point is it's not all on the student, they are victims to a large extent. We should also place blame on these elite institutions for suckering in young adults with their prestige and then not delivering a product that is worth what they charge. And on the government for providing a blank check for this nonsense.

Anyway, I do think we're mostly in agreement. And btw, I'm fine, I'm just speaking from the experiences of many of my peers, which have left me pretty teed-off at a prestigious university in my city that I will refrain from calling out by name.

You’re a drug abuser, I’m a drug dealer. I can’t sell you drugs without money. I have a friend who can give you a loan if you convince him, then you can pay me.

I know the drug dealer is not issuing the loan, but the dealer accepts and facilitates it. I’ll make it clearer:

I’m a drug dealer that doesn’t care where you get your money. If you rob and kill someone and bring me the money, I will take it.

So how does the dealer facilitate this entire institution?

They take the money, simple as that. If a drug dealer was a legal entity, they’d be sued into oblivion. These schools may as well be selling kilos of coke.

I’ll go one further:

I’m a drug dealer, currently you have no drug addiction. I cannot make money if you don’t have an addiction. Let me convince you need to take this drug.

The dealer creates the market for the loan too. Higher education needs you to take the loan.

For real, it’s basically predatory. And I’m not talking about BS degrees from crap online schools.

What the Ivy Leagues charge for certain graduate degrees in the social sciences is basically a huge scam. There is absolutely no viable pathway to pay back the $200,000+ cost of a graduate degree in social sciences from a school like Columbia or Harvard, other than public service loan forgiveness, if you actually want to work in the field that the degree ostensibly prepares you for.

I know people that got grad degrees like this and then ended up going to coding bootcamps so they could work in tech to pay them off.

Schools never guarantee outcomes. They can't actually. Education is an investment that is sensitive to market conditions, and unconditional loans for any form of study regardless of market conditions was always stupid. How about the government stops funding stupid shit on purpose? I guess that will make a bunch of liberal arts majors upset though.

Yes it is silly that the school has no skin in this game.

I just want to remind people that in the 1980's it was still possible to support yourself and work your way through school on minimum wage jobs.

I know because I did it. Took almost seven years but it was possible.

And it's it also how I know that the U.S. has truly gone to shit.

Anyone have a way to read this without a log in? I can't seem to get past the paywall with archive tools.

Aside from that, a friend of mine had a good solution for this - she just moved to Europe, got citizenship, and plans to never return to the states. Granted, she also had a terrible connection with her family, so she didn't stand to lose much anyway.

Edit: WarOnPrivacy has us covered with a link. Thanks!

To do that for yourself, put "https://archive.is/" the actual url. If there is tracking junk at the end of the link you might have to trim the url. Very often it's already archived, some times you have to wait for it to load.

Financial aid programs began so that deserving students could get to college and afford to do so without requiring extended family support.

Not too surprisingly, the perverse incentive of government aid to school administration and loan brokers has made college nearly unaffordable for all.

And of course, boomers cut the tax subsidies to schools once they are out so that even without the administrative bloat, tuition would be more expensive for those who came after

I’m ahead on payments because I want to get rid of them. Now I’m wondering if I should hold on to them and stop paying ahead so I am not covering other peoples chunk of the debt today. This sounds cruel in some passive way but I’d rather help signal the unaffordable-ness of the Usa.

I can’t afford:

- eggs (generally many groceries are more expensive)

- a 1-2 bed home of any quality

- medical care that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg

- my energy bill has doubled

- my savings payments have lowered

- 9+% inflation

And many of these problem have existed for the last 10+ years. But at least we had a pretty great bond market for a few years to help offset regular inflation.

If people can’t afford something like a student loan that’s already been “delayed or postponed” they will definitely deprioritize it.

> Now I’m wondering if I should hold on to them and stop paying ahead

If you want to be purely logical about it, the only thing that matters is the interest rate. Can you get higher returns investing the money elsewhere? Then invest it elsewhere.

My student loan was at 0.2% (yes, below 1). I made the minimum payment every month for 15 years. I was actually sad when it ended. I wish I could have added to the balance!

Also one other thing to remember, a student loan doesn't have collateral. They can't take your degree back if you don't pay. They can garnish your wage, but that's about it.

I am very skeptical that any employed reader of HackerNews in the US cannot afford eggs. Are you working in tech at all?

You may resent the state of the economy (as do I) but your loans will not go away. Nor should they. You knew you would have to pay that back when you started studying, and you did in fact study something useful that paid off. Taxpayers took a chance on your future, you got a useful education, and you owe everyone to pay it back.

Egg prices are up 200% at my store and have not gone down. The point isn’t “can I buy a carton of eggs” it’s “has a carton of eggs become a luxury item I no longer buy”.

To fight the cost of something as consumers we’re told not to purchase what we can’t afford or agree with. While I can probably eat eggs every day this year, my cost for those eggs has doubled from 2 years ago.

So why would I buy eggs just because I can?

My point was about how people reason and deprioritize costs.

> Egg prices are up 200% at my store and have not gone down. The point isn’t “can I buy a carton of eggs” it’s “has a carton of eggs become a luxury item I no longer buy”.

The average price of a dozen eggs is $3.59: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111

Yes, that's double what it was 5 years ago, but its also not a luxury item.

It became a luxury item as soon as the price doubled unreasonably. A dozen eggs is $6 where I live. You can cherry pick your egg prices around the country but for me it’s still 200% and for seemingly no reason.

You are proving my point from up above. We both know you can afford $6 to feed yourself for a couple of days. Is that really such a luxury that a software engineer can't afford it? There is so much irony here, it's unreal. If you cry about house prices it's one thing, but saying it's the eggs being so expensive that really seals the deal on you not repaying your loans is completely disingenuous. Nevermind that these loans have no term in the contract saying that you will get any particular quality of life after spending that money... The entitlement reeks. I am halfway in agreement in that I hate how the economy is, but there's no reality in which you deserve to get all that money for free as more cautious people forgo college for backbreaking jobs.

You are ignoring the point of my original comment that’s why I’m ignoring your point.

The point is: can I buy eggs? Yes. Is that equivilent to can I afford eggs? No.

Why? Because I’m not discussing buying eggs. I’m discussing knocking eggs off the list of things I can afford because the cost increased. If my grocery bill and energy bills increase I need to make cuts somewhere. So I choose eggs because they have doubled.

The point was that people prioritize costs relative to the state of the world. In my case I decided to not buy eggs. As one of the cost cutting measures. If I didn’t cut eggs, I’d be spending twice as much.

No amount of commenters screaming “YEAH BUT YOURE A SOFTWARE ENGINEER YOU CAN BUY EGGS” will make me buy eggs again until I view the cost as fair for my budget.

You’re the entitled one insisting that I can and should buy eggs. It’s not your life or money.

I never stated eggs as the reason I would stop paying my student loans. In fact the list is much longer than the single item of eggs.

The trend will go, if everyone stops paying their loans to prioritize other costs than that is what the “market” wants to be unburdened from student loans.

—-

I also didn’t get ANY money for free. That money went to the university charging overpriced tuition. I wasn’t spending it on overpriced eggs. It has nothing to do with free-money and everything to do with using money to burden people and calling it “education”.

>No amount of commenters screaming “YEAH BUT YOURE A SOFTWARE ENGINEER YOU CAN BUY EGGS” will make me buy eggs again until I view the cost as fair for my budget.

Again, you can afford it easily. You chose a bad example. Eggs are still practically the cheapest source of protein, besides beans. Are you trying to seriously make us think you're reduced to eating beans every day as a software engineer?

The reason I'm pushing you on this issue is that quite a few very well-off people seem to be trying to jump on the "woe is me" bandwagon. You are not poor and probably won't be any time soon. You may not be able to afford the lifestyle you want, but pretending to be poorer than you are because you think it's cool or something is asinine.

>I never stated eggs as the reason I would stop paying my student loans. In fact the list is much longer than the single item of eggs.

Yeah, I know. But throwing eggs in there and expecting us to take it seriously is kind of crazy. You probably can afford most of the things on the list, or will be able to in the future.

>The trend will go, if everyone stops paying their loans to prioritize other costs than that is what the “market” wants to be unburdened from student loans.

If these people in on the "trend" like over-entitled software engineers actually make money, it will be taken directly out of their paychecks. Unless you think quitting your job and living under a bridge is preferable to repaying what you promised to pay, and profitted from, you are going to stay in the system.

>I also didn’t get ANY money for free. That money went to the university charging overpriced tuition. I wasn’t spending it on overpriced eggs. It has nothing to do with free-money and everything to do with using money to burden people and calling it “education”.

It is free if you don't repay it. You want it free if you seek to not repay it. You chose to borrow for tuition, and that investment did in fact pay off for you. Stop whining about the economy that affects everyone, and pay what you owe.

Again no I can’t afford eggs. I eat other things besides eggs. I’ve chosen to stop buying eggs so I can afford other proteins.

It’s a perfectly good example you’re just trying to find a way to dunk on me about eggs. I’m not talking about just eggs though, I’m talking about groceries in general.

Stop rewriting my intent and commentary.

It's not me who is rewriting your commentary, it's you. It's not my fault that you wrote something that is just unbelievable.

Also, in the context of groceries in general, I don't believe you are starving or incapable of buying enough food on the salary of a software engineer. I think you make enough money to live on a 100% egg diet, even at the price of $10 per dozen. But let's just leave it at that. This whole discussion is going nowhere.

>The point isn’t “can I buy a carton of eggs” it’s “has a carton of eggs become a luxury item I no longer buy”.

We both know that you could afford a $30 dozen eggs, and it would STILL be cheaper than the alternative. That is my point.

Cool, well your point isn’t relevant to my original point then. Because my original point was “here’s things that have increased in expense and how I prioritize costs”. It’s entirely telling that you choose to ignore the latter part of the same line, not only eggs are more expensive but groceries have gone up.

Just because I have disposable income to pay higher costs of groceries doesn’t mean it’s fair that the suppliers take advantage of difficult times to normalize a 200% increase to a grocery item. Just because you think I should personally stop complaining about the cost of eggs because you’re tired of it or whatever your issue is, doesn’t mean that my complaints and tactics aren’t valid.

Go buy some eggs if you really think I should be then.

I’m not rich by any software engineer standard, so it’s a little prejudice that you want to harass me about how much money I make as compared to a statement I made about being able to afford things.

I hope you never complain about the cost of living for any item or issue ever again in your life. You seem to have it all figured out.

>Just because I have disposable income to pay higher costs of groceries doesn’t mean it’s fair that the suppliers take advantage of difficult times to normalize a 200% increase to a grocery item.

In most cases, this is not the suppliers taking advantage of anyone. Grocers operate on very thin profit margins, as do most food businesses.

>I’m not rich by any software engineer standard, so it’s a little prejudice that you want to harass me about how much money I make as compared to a statement I made about being able to afford things.

Even poor people can still afford eggs. For a software engineer to say they can't afford them is ridiculous. If you talked to a real poor person and they knew how much you earned, and you started saying you can't afford eggs, they'd start wondering wtf you do with your money.

>I hope you never complain about the cost of living for any item or issue ever again in your life. You seem to have it all figured out.

I don't have it all figured out. I suffer from high cost of living, despite making great money. But you won't catch me saying my student loans didn't pay off, or that eggs are out of reach. I can't say that no software engineer in the world has such budget issues that they can't afford eggs. But if you can't afford THAT, I wonder what the hell you CAN afford... How are you not starving to death? Are you on food stamps yet?

Trust me I know what it's like to not afford things, or to be disappointed with life. But your problems are insignificant compared to those of actual poor people (many of whom get government benefits to sustain them). Your loans appear to have paid off, unless you paid like well over $200k for a 4 year degree or some crap like that.

Cool opinion. I didn’t read it because you seem hell bent on telling me how to live my life. I can’t afford eggs. Any money I save by not buying eggs goes into savings. If I buy eggs then I can’t afford the level of savings I want. See how that math works?

Eat what you want. You're not going to convince me that eggs are out of reach for you, or that you are poor, or that you can't afford your student loans (much less that you deserve to get away with not paying them).

You don't need to leave a comment to say "I'm doubling down, and not reading your replies" by the way. It's totally pointless.

Student loan bills won't ignore them lol

Of course they're not paying their student debt. When the federal government of the moment is using student loan forgiveness to try bribe reelection votes, it sends a pretty strong signal that this shit is frivolous.

As a taxpayer who has never taken on loans of any kind, I find this all quite irritating. You take on debt, you pay the debt, don't turn my tax dollars into your negligence subsidy.

> As a taxpayer who has never taken on loans of any kind

No mortgage? Bravo

No credit card, no mortgage, no "you cover dinner tonight and I'll Venmo you later"...

I would bet they inherited land which has benefitted tremendously from price increases due to taxpayer subsidized no prepayment penalty 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

> I would bet they inherited land which has benefitted tremendously from price increases due to taxpayer subsidized no prepayment penalty 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

Try again. I've inherited relatively little.

> Try again. I've inherited relatively little.

Most people inherit nothing. Actually, most people end up spending money taking care of their parents.

Why do you think most people inherit nothing? Every person I know who has had an immediate family member die has received some sort of inheritance, though sometimes not a very valuable one. Do you have a citation for your very strong claim?

because for most inheiritance is a rounding error. Either I happens far too late in life and so you are already set or it is distributed between so many others your share is insignificant.

though it appears most people will get something

It’s crazy easy to Google that claim, why not try that first? “Every person I know” is also known as type of ‘survivor bias’. Googling, I get multiple answers that 30%-40% of US citizens get any inheritance, which is a minority. Here’s one of them: https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-papers/2011/pdf/ec110030.p...

When my grandmother-in-law passes away, my father-in-law will be about 500k+ “in the hole” because he will receive nothing, and has housed them for the past 25 years, in addition to paying for care, GIL has dementia.

On the flip side, your tax dollars made a bad loan. Usually, when a creditor did a bad job underwriting and makes a loan that cannot be repaid, the creditor is made to eat the cost.

This. People want to act like they aren't the government when it does something stupid.

Voters have basically no power, and very little incentive to even bother voting wisely. There is abundant evidence that your vote does not matter, and to pretend otherwise is fantasy.

Why would you claim evidence and not cite any?

Those of us who voted for the current President have seen him do so much of what he told us he would with so much progress. Even his opponents claim he's done dozens to fifty things in office that they wish didn't happen. Even they agree he's getting a lot done. So, he's proof that our vote counted.

I'd rather have a person following Christ with godly character. That plus not taking a bribe and having skill at leading are the Bible's standard for picking rulers. Americans filter them for these rich, elitist egomaniacs. Then, we have to pick the lesser evil on policy grounds until that stops. God works even through the wicked to bless us in some ways, though. That's the bright side.

Trump's character is not what a person following Christ should be. Just his remark that "they let you do anything" to women when you're rich and famous should be evidence of that, let alone the personality cult around him that he built, and the hundreds or thousands of things he's said since 2016.

I agree on character. His policies lined up more with what we needed, though. While, the Democrats actively censor Christ, the Bible, and people sharing the Gospel ("hate speech" or "harassment") while promoting sins in Romans 1 as public policy and in education. The sins they promote are the same ones that keep showing up in the Old Testament before God destroys that nation.

We wanted God, ability to share Christ, the Word, and less sins that get nations destroyed. We got that. We saw both politicians and people on the news praise Jesus for the first time in a long tine. We also saw companies, like Meta, reversing censorship policies they used against Christians and conservarives. That affects me since I lost accounts in big communities just for mentioning Jesus or God's Word.

Oh man as someone who is concerned about the censorship and in favor of religious freedom, I really wish we could have a serious discussion about this, but HN probably isn’t the place. Are the sins you’re referring to mainly centered around sexuality, e.g. homosexuality? What happened to caring about adultery, maliciousness, perjury, faithlessness, boastfulness, arrogance, slander and deceit? Those are all things Trump has done and continues to do. Trump’s “character” happens to cover a pretty big subset of the sins mentioned in Romans 1. I’m very curious why people believe Trump’s claims that he’s on the side of Christians, given how often and how severely he misrepresents the truth in order to serve his own power. It is obviously pandering, and as such is deceitful in the name of religion. Doesn’t that concern you gravely? Doesn’t his selling bibles with his name on it, and with gold and camo covers, do anything for you? To me it seems extremely crass, gross, and disrespectful to God, Christ, and the Bible.

You're talking about one person. All the politicians I've seen are wicked. I said plenty often that they should be replaced with people pf godly character. Until then, working with who is in the race (eg Harris vs Trump), have to vote for nobody by that standard. If voting for policy, we look at policies rather than the politician.

Progressives have been, at an institutional level, censoring the Gospel as hate speech or harassment, mocking God in media, promoting idolatry/universalism, pushing fornication, promoting child murder (abortion) even financially, pushing LGBT even in elementary school, and recently systematic discrimination against entire groups. They also defend Palestine over Israel when they have to pick a side. They also export sexual immorality to other countries via media and political deals which is exactly what Revelation warns about in Rev. 17:2.

The Old Testament shows these same traits... especially idolatry, child murder, and ditching Biblical marriage for perversion... being common threads for the destruction of nations. That Progressives promote these on a policy level, but mock and fight God's design and the Gospel, means we have a clear choice. One party, who is merely pandering, will at least let us share Christ, protect babies from murder, and reverse other damaging trends. Those trends are happening now but didn't under Biden/Harris or Obama.

They’re not merely pandering, though, they are swearing by The Lord’s name falsely. Why is it a good thing to vote for them when their stated plan is an active (and immoral) deceit to fake Godliness and trick you into empowering them, and convince you their opponents are immoral and evil? Don’t you worry this is a Trojan horse, that you’re inviting in Satan disguised as an angel of light to your sanctuary? Anyway, it’s working, which is why you already know that it’s not just one person we are talking about, right? You’re talking about voting for a ruling political party on religious grounds, a party that is using your religious views to sway your political opinion. They do not share your views in Christ, they are weaponizing Christianity more successfully than anyone else ever has.

Personally I worry about the fact that Republican fiscal policy is actively harmful to supporting the lives of the children who are being saved by the abortion ban. Why are we cherry picking only the pre-birth side of a pro life agenda? Why aren’t they pro- the already born living? Their fiscal policies are actively and intentionally harmful to the poor and actively against sharing costs and establishing social safety nets. To me it feels extremely un-Christ-like to spread so much hate and division and pretend to care about Christians.

I’m not sure we’re going to reach one another constructively, but I remain intensely curious how and why Republicans are so successful at this when they are certainly working against the interests of pious people like you. It’s very interesting that democrats are being successfully vilified and painted as pure evil when their fiscal policy is traditionally firmly on the side of loving thy neighbor in the way God meant it when speaking to Moses, while conservative policy is firmly on the side of stripping the vineyard bare and leaving nothing for the sojourner, of keeping the hired workers wages all night, of not caring for one another. Their policies are designed to benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the poor, and this is a damaging trend that is accelerating.

Okay but again — be pissed at the government for making bad loans in the first place, not for writing them off when it is impossible for them to be repaid.

Congrats on not having to take out a loan. Most people aren't that lucky.

Most people taking out student loans are still teenagers. Does anyone really expect a teenager to make good financial decisions? Also, most people can't get a solid job without going to college, so they're forced to take out loans.

That "negligence subsidy" is really helping people who were put in an unfair situation by colleges and banks.

Sometimes the government can help someone who isn’t you, without it being a problem for you. And society is large and complex, so you’ve certainly benefited from lots of government spending on things that don’t benefit you.

As a taxpayer who paid off all the debts they’ve incurred, I have no ill feelings towards those who can’t.

As a taxpayer who has always been able to pay for food, I have no ill feelings towards those on food stamps.

As a taxpayer who has been able to pay rent/mortgage, I have no ill feelings towards those in shelters.

Some people need help, it’s the responsibility of everyone else in society to aid those in need.

The difference is that people on food stamps and people who are in homeless shelters are in need of help. They are our most needy (perhaps in addition to those on mediaid). I am not needy, yet for some reason I would have been a beneficiary of Biden's original student loan forgiveness plan. Giving money to people for having loans for a college degree doesn't seem like a great way to redistribute to "those in need". I haven't looked it up, but I'd be willing to bet that people with student loans earn more than others their age, even after accounting for their loan payments.

And it does create a massive moral hazard. I still have my student loans, because why would I pay them off? I'd rather wait for someone to get elected and decide to pay them off for me. (And you can bet that everyone considering taking loans is thinking the same thing, and factoring the chance of forgiveness into the expected cost of the loans.)

FWIW, that strikes me as a somewhat myopic view of ‘need’. Homelessness and food stamps are certainly an incredibly acute need, for daily survival. But investing in education is something our country needs for long term survival.

The US makes more money on the additional income tax of college educated people than it costs to educate them, many times over. It’s in our collective interest to put you (and anyone who wants to go) through college. I totally get the personal responsibility angle here, but the actual moral hazard here is that our country chooses not to cover education in the first place, when it doesn’t make economic sense to do anything else, and not educating people is worse for everyone (except perhaps a few CEO billionaires).

As a total side note, it’s also really interesting to me how strong our ingrained no-free-lunch and teach-someone-to-fish mores are, even when there’s lots of strong counter evidence. Poverty is extremely damaging and getting people out of poverty by giving them what they need is more important than forcing people to struggle through it and learn something. The (often) unspoken assumption that rides under that stuff is that people are poor because of bad choices and low work ethic, which is frequently completely and utterly wrong, and anyway extremely complicated because being poor forces people to make bad choices. Breaking the cycle allows people in need to live and breathe and make good choices.

I look at it more as an investment in our citizens . If you don't keep your grades up or fail out you should have to pay it back, but if you graduate and start your life, pay taxes etc the loans should be forgiven. The country would eventually get their investment back via taxes. They could implement this and some type of oversight to reign in the university costs. Easier to control indebted people though so it wont happen.

That would make sense as a program, though it might incentivize some strange Cobra-Effect type behaviour among both institutions and students. The problem is that the backwards-looking forgiveness/giveaway programs do not incentivize people to work hard or select degrees they can complete.

I think one difference is that for most investments, you get some say in what you invest in.

For public schools, you have school districts. For infrastructure you have utility districts. For libraries and parks and amenities, you have municipal government.

For student loans, though, the individual students are the ones making the decisions. The taxpayer is subsidizing students pursuing highly employable careers like engineering or medical science, but is equally subsidizing students pursuing unemployable degrees like cultural studies or literature.

And to be clear, these areas do have value, but it also seems reasonable for taxpayers to call out the fact that these are terrible ROI investments, money-wise.

Practically, this makes no sense though. Those that do not complete school are the ones that will have the hardest time paying back their loans. You are just burying people further in their own failures.

Young people make mistakes. It does not benefit society to make those mistakes ruin their lives.

We were forced to go to school under penalty of law. We were told our whole time that you have to go to college to get a good job. Employers often demanded Bachelor's degrees to get hired at all. If not, "you'll be flipping burgers" was a common warning.

The people requiring us to go to college usually wouodn't pay for it. The colleges got more expensive. So, if it's required or really helps, it was rational to take on college loans to get a Bachelor's in good specializations. Many of us did IT or Business. (I did both.)

Once out of college, people looking for jobs found that most companies woukdnt hire them for lack of experience. If they did, they would pay them a little above minimum wage. That would either not cover the bills or barely cover them. The minimums on the loans were high, too.

At this point, people with Business degrees are working in grocery stores making nothing but loaded with debt. They realize they were screwed by the whole system in what amounted to a long-term con about the ROI of a college degree. They feel that, if they got nothing for it, they shouldn't have to repay it at all or at least get a break on payments. They're paying less on the debts to experience some of the quality of life they were promised if they spent 4 years on a degree.

That's what happened to a large number of hard-working people whose expensive degrees got them nothing but poverty and debt. They're barely scraping by now. They wish they ignored all the advice in school and never got one. Or maybe got the cheapest one they could find instead of really investing into a worthless asset.

And the best part is we all get to read descriptions of us online that we were just irresponsible, lazy idiots. No mention of years of being forced by schools and businesses to get this debt to have a decent job. No mention that they often don't pay people with degrees anything. Something seems wrong about that.

One foolish decision after another. Believing that the loans would be hand waived away was peak naivety.

And now, 2/3 of them are not even bothering to pay the loans. Good luck getting an apartment, house, car, or a top job with bad credit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com