Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

Don't fucking lump us all in with this asshole. I worked through school and I chose not to go to a more expensive out of country option that I could have gotten into (MIT). There are tons of shitty jobs that pay very high wages, like northern Canadian diamond mines, for example) that this person could have done. Bankruptcy should be for completely unforeseen circumstances, like early life medical problems, not because someone wants to be a writer.

View on HN

Well said. There are people who are screwed by the system, and there are also people who just screw themselves. I think it's important to hear from the first group, which might help to affect change. The second group should STFU. Yes, these kids are only 18 when they make these decisions. Yes, they're ill informed and vulnerable to much more sophisticated people trying to manipulate them. I'm sure there are many sad stories to tell, but telling them isn't constructive. It only reinforces the stereotype of all student loan defaulters as being irresponsible and overcome with their own sense of entitlement like Lee Siegel. That reduces sympathy, and therefore reduces the likelihood of positive change. The assumption that every story needs to be told doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Some just don't.

> There are people who are screwed by the system, and there are also people who just screw themselves.

And there are people who are neither, such as myself.

I don't think that the discussion about how crappy our system is and how to fix it should be owned by any one of these groups. Maybe the article's author is the not the poster child for financial responsibility, but that doesn't make his arguments about the broken state of our system any less valid.

But he doesn't just make an argument about how broken the system is. He also makes an argument for what people should do in response. It's an illegal, questionably moral, and quite often risky response. That's the part that's wrong, and in advocating for the second part he undermines any effort to do anything about the first part.

Perhaps it is questionably moral and risky, but why should it be any more so than a corporation filing for bankruptcy? The difference is that bankruptcies are, to some extent, priced into the system. If they weren't and if personal bankruptcies, for example, weren't allowed, we'd see problems with personal and housing loan underwriting standards dropping to the level of students loans. It's no coincidence that there has been a strong push towards making all personal loans exempt from bankruptcy. Being setup to fail is profitable.

So how do you change things? You can change the rules of the game, but the rulemakers are tight with the gamemakers. You can refuse to play, but playing the game is seen as the only way out for many. Or you can refuse to pay and break the game permanently. I don't advocate any particular approach, but I understand those who do.

You're Canadian, totally different.

How so? State schools in the U.S. are much cheaper than the program I took.

Bankruptcy is when a person refuses to play by the rule of the establishment. That's perfectly reasonable regardless of circumstance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com