1. As I stated, my issue is not that everyone isn't doing what I'm doing. It's:

my problem is that the author presents this situation as a choice between "life and death," where "life" is "doing what I desire but not making enough money to pay my obligations," and "death" is "anything else."

2. Holy assumptions Batman. Just because I work for a "Big Evil Corporate Bank" doesn't mean I have anything to do with any moral judgment calls. I'm also not sure where "think of the children" is coming in. A person defaulting on their student loans isn't really going to harm the people that come along afterwards in any real or significant way. I just have a problem with people who opt into an agreement and then decide that since it's not convenient for them to honor that agreement, they are going to toss it out the window. This could be taken as a moral viewpoint, I suppose. But just because I work for a bank does not change fundamentally who I am - which in fact is kind of my point with the earlier comment. The author refused to take any job other than their heart's desire out of some belief that anything less was to be untrue to himself and "die." I find that viewpoint stupid. I think that what you do for money in white middle-class generally making-it-by-America (a group of which the author is definitely a member) is not, in any way, a statement on who you are. So while I work for a bank, that doesn't define me. It can't kill me. It actually often enables me to pursue my creative and soul-satisfying goals. All the while I manage to pay my student loans. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If am defined by something I do 40 hours each week, you can call me a sleeper.

3. Credit score is quasi-religious because it's checked whenever you...uh...apply for credit, (Buying a house, buying a car, etc) enter a contractual agreement in which the other party has a vested interest in determining whether you will pay them on time (rent an apartment), or, less frequently, when you enter a different contractual agreement in which the other party has a vested interest in knowing if you are reliable (employment)? Do you think a credit score should not be used during those times?

4.

Should you ever really internalize that money > other considerations

  a. Pretty sure you meant that money < other considerations? 
  b. LOL get to know me 
  c. Money > not being able to food, clothe, & house oneself; repay one's obligations; in short I do agree that money is greater than the inability to meet the basic levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If society did not agree with that as a whole, we would no longer use money. 

5. Why are student loans a trap? Is it because they require students to find gainful employment after graduation? I sense you are driving at "student loans are often made in ridiculous high dollar amounts that graduates cannot possibly hope to repay and that is why they are a trap." While that's true in 2015, the author of this article was going to college in 1985. When on average the tuition for a 4 year degree was about $5,000. (Not the nearly $30,000 it is today. I have a source in another comment in this thread.) Moreover, assuming the author majored in the social sciences (Engrish), according to this other fun source he could expect to land a job with an average income of $25,000 - use the "constant dollars" to negate inflation - which is just about $4k less than someone with a BA would expect to earn today. Except they would expect to have about $120,000 in debt. Not $20,000. And if you're wondering, in June 1985, 75% of BA graduates were employed full time within a year after graduation. - p487 That's 10 points better than current employment stats for the same demographic (ish - I admit, I couldn't easily find a "one year after graduation" metric so I just used employment rates. Go on, lambast me.)

When your debt load is less than your annual salary do you know what that is? It is manageable.

_____

Again - I do believe the student loan crisis of the 2000s is problematic. I believe that universities are out of line with soaring tuition coasts, while at the same time they are keeping most of their educators on as 'associate professors' who don't earn above the poverty level - even when teaching multiple classes at multiple universities in an attempt to make ends meet. I believe that many students made poor financial decisions that were a result of ignorance, fear, a conscious decision that their student loan payments were a problem for "future me," a million other reasons. I believe that private lenders shouldn't be allowed to make student loans. And so on.

I believe that we should have better ways to deal with financial situations and that what you describe as an option in Germany is an interesting approach that probably works in Germany. Who knows if it would work here. I believe student loans should be able to be discharged in the course of bankruptcy.

This author didn't declare bankruptcy. He had connections. You don't graduate college and start writing for the New Yorker otherwise. He chose to obtain 3 degrees, two of which were master's, thereby increasing his student loan debt. In fact, for one of those degrees, apparently he only took out loans for living expenses due to receiving a full scholarship...but didn't seek employment as a first resource for his living expenses, instead turned to loans. He chose to live on credit.

Second chances are great and should be granted, but I feel this author is using the current anti-student-loan attitude to his benefit when really, he wasn't experiencing what most of the Millenials out there today are. He repeatedly and knowingly incurred more debt that wasn't necessary. He sought a BA at a time when it was not common or requisite for employment to receive a BA. He then sought advanced degrees after that.

And even above and beyond that? I will give a second chance to someone who makes an honest effort. By his own admission, the author never did. He said, "to not be employed as a writer is to die," a completely frivolous and laughable statement, and therefore believes his choice to ignore the debts he couldn't pay because of his need for a singular, unstable, poorly-paying, non-degree-requiring artists-career is justified.

That is ridiculous and I will not applaud that behavior or the reeking entitlement that comes along with it. I do not respect artists who do not make art, I do not respect artists who believe they cannot do anything for money but make art, I do not respect artists who believe that to obtain a gainful, stable job in a large company is "selling out" and should be dismissed as an option, completel and wholly, based solely on that idea.

I respect artists who make a living somehow, and make art any way they can regardless of how that living comes. If you cannot be an artist without being employed full time as such you are not a good artist. Employment should not be what validates you.