- I found myself confronted with a choice that too many people have had to and will have to face. I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school. Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society. I chose life. That is to say, I defaulted on my student loans.
I chose life. That is to say, I defaulted on my student loans. Oh my, well aren't we precious and special, far too special to pay back the money that we borrowed, and to "waste our lives" doing something that isn't our specially chosen specially snowflake Profession of Choice - and of course, not working in that Profession of Choice would, absolutely, totally, kill us, wouldn't it? WHILE I AGREE that student loans and student loan debt are huge problems facing the youth in America today, and I am in fact one of those people, I find myself still waking up alive each day to go to my job at a Big Evil Corporate Bank despite my dreams of being a writer, so I would like to know what makes this author so specially-special that a "Real Job(TM)" is such anathema to them, such poison to their special sensitive disposition, that they could not manage it. - By the way guys - check it out - with that Real Job, I also have this crazy nifty thing called a Real 401(k)! It's fun when following your dream means barely NOT making enough money now (if you can't pay your debts, you're not making enough money) and certainly never having enough for the future. Innit? Maybe they didn't respond well to management. Oh, boy. Wait til this author gets into medical debt. Or car debt. Or house debt. Did you know that debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing that happens to people? And most of those people didn't think they were being irresponsible when they got into it, and most people thought whatever they were paying for was a Good and Necessary Thing? Actually, here's a thought. Wait til this author realizes that sometimes, some things kind of suck, but that doesn't mean you can just quit them. Oh. Well fuck you too. I have a five figure income. I just happen to only have a reasonable amount of student debt (in-state tuition anyone? finished college in 3 years - in part to avoid additional debt?). But that's not because anyone I'm related to is a millionaire and it's not because my family paid for my college. I didn't get my student loans paid off through some mysterious "family connection" either. I'm still paying them off. And I will continue to do so. Until they're done. God, sacrificing your nonpaying but TOTALLY ESSENTIAL dream career just looks like blood splattered all over an altar, doesn't it? It just feels horrible too, having an extra couple hundred I can burn each month, after I pay all my obligations and then some. Trust me, I can barely type for all the soul-crushing.I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.
It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college.
Someone with character would have paid off those loans and let the chips fall where they may. But I have found, after some decades on this earth, that the road to character is often paved with family money and family connections, not to mention 14 percent effective tax rates on seven-figure incomes.
If you are working for a "Big Evil Corporate Bank", you should be perfectly familiar with the logic of "It's business, moral decisions don't have anything to do with how we act." Yet, if someone finds themselves trapped in a situation where their only rational business decision involves making the business decision of defaulting, it's suddenly time for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". The quasi-religious importance of one's credit rating is a valid argument. Also, a sign of truly insane times. Trust me, I can barely type for all the soul-crushing. Should you ever really internalize that money > other considerations, you may not feel obliged to agressively justify what you're doing. Could go either way, really. The way student loans are set up in the US, they are a trap. You may not see it that way since you've arranged yourself comfortably with it. That's how traps work. You only really notice them if you try to move. In Germany, despite not having to deal with the kind of insane costs of education that you have, we have this thing called "Privatinsolvenz". As far as I know, it can only be done once. What it means is that everything of real value you possess at the time of your default is sold off by a court appointed trustee - that doesn't include necessities of life, like a computer if you work with those or a car if you need that for your job. You'll also get to keep ~1100€ (more if children are involved) of your earnings, while a percentage (about 50 percent) of everything above that is used to pay of your creditors. If you manage to pay off 1/3 of your debt, the remaining 2/3 are forgiven after 3 years. Otherwise, 5 years for all to be forgiven if you only manage to pay court costs and 6 years if you don't. This means that people actually can get that second chance. Considering how easy it is to make some poor decisions when you're young, especially if "financial responsibility" is not part of what your parents taught you well... I think a second chance like that is really important to have.I find myself still waking up alive each day to go to my job at a Big Evil Corporate Bank despite my dreams of being a writer, so I would like to know what makes this author so specially-special that a "Real Job(TM)" is such anathema to them, such poison to their special sensitive disposition, that they could not manage it.
So because you are fine with playing along, so should everyone else. Got it.God, sacrificing your nonpaying but TOTALLY ESSENTIAL dream career just looks like blood splattered all over an altar, doesn't it? It just feels horrible too, having an extra couple hundred I can burn each month, after I pay all my obligations and then some.
1. As I stated, my issue is not that everyone isn't doing what I'm doing. It's: 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. 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.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."
Should you ever really internalize that money > other considerations
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.) 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.
Well, you make the moral call that it's ok to work at a bank, knowing what banks do, how they operate. So there's that. Yeah. People are still buying that, even after 2008. It's hilarious. Well, sure, I guess "We are not going to screw up the real world economy in our quest for insane proftits. We also won't be unable to satisfy our obligations, get bailed out by the taxes of the people we just screwed over and still pay ourselves a big bonus afterwards." never was part of a formal agreement. So I guess that's great. Look, I completely agree when we're talking about two private individuals entering into an agreement. If you're going to back out of one of those, your reasons had better be 100% and you had better make sure the other guy isn't screwed over by your actions. But the way I see it, the only one who is supposed to play by these "private" rules and morals in business transactions is the little guy. There's a completely different set of standards if you're a corporation or just damn wealthy. I don't know anyone who works 40 hours somewhere for years and isn't eventually fundamentally changed by that. Maybe you're the exception. As you have pointed out, I need to be more careful about making assumptions. May just be different (national) mentalities at work, here. I happen to believe that what you do (and consequently, what you enable through your time and work) does something about who you are. The obvious exception is just not being given any choice. It's rare to find oneself in such a situation, but it can happen. I'd also not really blame people who are simply too stupid, naive or just otherwise "mentally disabled". But you seem to be neither. Yeah, I get it. You like money. I can't believe you like money, too. I like money, too! No, I can call you a human who likes to get an average amount of sleep. If you spend 40 hours a week working for a bank, I'll call you a banker. If it means anything to be called that is up to me, you or anyone reading this. It should be checked when someone applies for a credit. That would include, say, a contract where you're promising to pay off your new Smartphone along with your monthly network fees. It should never be used to jude a person's character or in cases where essential neccessities of life are concerned. Because if the credit score is used in such instances, those who issue it suddenly become high-priests of the financial church of "We decide over people's right to lead a decent life Inc". Where does the moral high ground come from when credit is concerned? I really don't get it.
This is how credit happens. Indeed, how money happens. Why make such a fuss about people not "paying it back"? Granted, I am actually talking more about the current concept than about this one NYT writer's situation. Then again, I don't see why anyone should be angry at him. He is rightly pointing out that the current system is a trap. He managed to get himself trapped when it sucked less. That doesn't mean his advise, about how nothing in the system will change as long as people bend over backwards to make their payments, is wrong. See, this is where we'll never agree. In fact, judging art by its marketability is one of the brighter glowing red flags that something is inherently out of balance in our system.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 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.
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?
a. Pretty sure you meant that money < other considerations?
Nope. I was saying that once you have fully integrated the opinion that the money you make justifies what you do and how you live, you'll not have to mention it so often. b. LOL get to know me
I'm sure you're a great guy to be around. We obviously disagree about a great many things, yet your replies are pleasant and informative. 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.
Yeah. So given the importance of money, wouldn't it be nice if the way it's created and distributed was a little less... crooked?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[...]
If you cannot be an artist without being employed full time as such you are not a good artist.
Also...Uhm... I work in Audit. My job is to make sure the bank is following the law. Is it still morally wrong to work for a bank in that case? If so, and I should quit (because I have morals), then who would be left to do my job - those who don't care about the morality of working at a bank? Because they probably don't care about the morality of properly auditing either. Not all banks are evil; not all things bank employees do are evil. If everyone got morally uprighteous and quit working at banks across the nation tomorrow, things would be more fucked, not less. And if we are judging banks as evil entities for which no one with morals should work, our standards for moral employment have become such that I suggest we would have to get rid of all fast food employment too, for the moral implications of the health issues of fast food (not to mention the meat/agri industry). What follows is a slippery slope where, in the end, almost no one is employed. It is comforting to think we can make moral calls on our employers and "be better people than" x. It is not realistic.Well, you make the moral call that it's ok to work at a bank, knowing what banks do, how they operate. So there's that.
While I have enjoyed this, I can't take more time away from meatspace at the moment to really go point for point nor do I think it totally necessary. I did want to say that I think you may have misinterpreted my last statement - What I meant by this (and I admit I had to re-read the sentence 3 times to make sure that it's what I wrote, there are 3 negatives and they get confusing) was that "If there is a person who wants to be an artist, but does not feel that they are "officially an artist" unless "artist" is their technical, official, all-the-time 40-hours-a-week job in title and description, then I do not think that person is a very good artist." By that I mean: I believe a person who wants to create art will create art. In fact will not be able to stop creating art no matter what they are doing. Whether they have a job and what that job is should mostly be completely moot. And, in line with that, I believe that someone who only feels they have succeeded in their art, can create their art, and are "truly" an artist as a result of a job title or position is a person who allows exterior trappings to define, even drive, them and what they do. (I'd also point out that for the most part, people who pursue careers in their chosen field of art aren't usually made happy or fulfilled by that work in the long run either, because they are still answering to others' requirements and visions for their art. Graphic designers create for their clients and must cater to those desires, not their own. Newspapers have to sell stories. Even if you have the job title that is supposedly the "dream art job," unless you are running your own show start to finish, I think it will fall short of "dream fulfillment." Relying on a job position to officially Be An Artist means that when you're off the job, you're not an artist. It means that you can get fired and stop being an artist. It sure does mean you always have work, 'inspiration,' and are probably constantly creating - but mostly, for others. Not for yourself, not for your fulfillment. So it's not about marketability. It's about whether you are an artist, or whether you happen to be an artist because you currently occupy a space that someone says is artist-shaped. I don't need to survive off of writing in order to know I am a writer. I probably never will be able to just be a writer full time. But that doesn't make me any less of one.If you cannot be an artist without being employed full time as such you are not a good artist.
There are other options aside from defaulting on one's student loan debt, at least in Canada. The NSLSC (National Student Loan Service Centre) will work very hard to ensure that the payable amount per month is within a person's income, with the Government paying interest and (potentially) a portion of the principle. If a person is making under a certain amount, they're not required to pay any of it. Finally, if a person is still making very little money, after 15 years the debt is completely discharged without any hint of bankruptcy. Going bankrupt because he doesn't want the debt over his head is a selfish attitude. Moreover, regardless of wherever the money is coming from, it's an irresponsible attitude, and (I'd argue) an unethical attitude as well. Furthermore, to encourage other people struggling with their student loan debt load to declare bankruptcy is deplorable. Anecdotally, I have three degrees, like the writer, but unlike the writer, I'm still paying off my student loans and will likely be doing so for the next eight or nine years. Nine more years with a sizable chunk of my income going towards servicing debt that I earned when I was in my early 20s--my monthly mortgage payment and my student loan payments are about the same. I'm making it work. I don't see why this writer chose to default, especially given the economic situation in the US 30 years ago when he defaulted. Yet, if someone finds themselves trapped in a situation where their only rational business decision involves making the business decision of defaulting, it's suddenly time for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!".
The fact is that The entire country lent him this money on the promise that he would offer something to society when he got out. He's not offering anything to society. If he was useful as a Psychology professional (which he obtained 3 degrees from an Ivy League college to prove), he would make enough money to be able to get by while paying back his student loans. His situation is the culmination of many bad decisions (going to an Ivy League school instead of a state college, Picking Psychology as a major without thinking about "what comes after?", etc. If he would have busted his ass through college and jumped through the hoops that led to a well paying job after he got out, everything would be fine.
Well there is the difference, he doesn't want that 401k and yes you too could have said fuck you, but you didn't. I'm not familiar with the student loan system, but if what he did is possible without going to prison and he feels that's what works for him, it's an option, just not you're option.
Yeah - 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." It's possible to do without going to prison but not without completely tanking your credit. And that makes me wonder what benefits the author had available to him that he didn't mention. Like for instance, for the 7 years after he defaulted on his loans, how did he find a living space? A lot of apartments require credit checks and a mortgage absolutely does, which means he didn't buy a house, and/or was able to depend on someone else's credit in order to find a living space. (Like a spouse's, for instance.) A lot of jobs require a credit check...as a freelance writer, of course, maybe he got around that. There's also the potential for wage garnishment - but again, as a freelancer, he may have been able to escape that. However, if he ever took a regular job, he wouldn't be able to. There's also the harassment factor. He subjected not only himself but his family to collection calls from creditors for the next...40 years. They're still on-going, I believe.
Dude. Do the math; it isn't difficult. (In fact you don't even have to do math. Just search for loan payment calculator and interest calculator and let them do all the work.) The interest rate on your loan(s) should be fixed. The rate of return on an investment isn't fixed, but a return on a conservative strategy over a long period should be about 6% (even say 5 just to be extra sure). Add that to the immediate return that you get from your employer match, then compare what your opportunity cost is for accelerating repayment of the loan. If it saves you money in the long run it's a good idea; if it costs you money, then it isn't. Simple.
That's actually very insightful. Given the option to deal with student loans like regular debt, default or bankruptcy discharge would be my most attractive options. I'm very poor and getting a different job isn't realistic with my skills and experience. But this guy got his PhD from Columbia, writes for the New Yorker and can't pay this one bill out of twisted moralism? Fuck you. Ever been to the pawn shop so you can buy food?
There was also an article somewhere with a personal finance or debt or something expert where they interviewed her and the first question was, so what would you advise people with student loans do? What is the best way to declare bankruptcy? And the expert was all, human up and fucking pay them. And then it was awkward because the interviewer had to throw all their questions out and roll with it.
This man has the same attitude as young people who take payday loans, then never pay them back. If the person taking a debt doesn't pay it, others will have to pay that debt for them in one way or another. The extreme case being the devaluation of the currency or the economy as a whole. Money isn't free, if it were we could just print more all the time and solve problems that way. That this man's stance is somehow intellectual or philosophical compared to youths taking payday loans is class-ism.
Your views on what money is, how it is created and how loans work are outdated by a at least several decades. Nobody is paying for the loans you default on and 97% of all money is created when commercial banks grant loans. A 2015 study offered solid evidence that individual banks indeed create money "out of thin air". I have linked that study several times, this thread included. Money and loans are not what you think they are.
Fair enough, but I still don't understand why the fact that the money 'created' by the loan relationship (as the BoE put it) isn't erased by the payment and end of the loan relationship isn't relevant. That is, there's new money in circulation, and nothing happens to take it back out? Isn't that inflation in action?
Because it wasn't people lending him that money.
Could you at least bother finding out how the current monetary system works before articulating strong opinions? Because as it is, all you're doing is demonstrating deeply ingrained cultural programming. This is beginning to get tiresome. If nobody can be bothered to actually read the evidence, complete with documentation, that one offers because it looks too much like an academic paper (which it is), then I really don't know how we're going to have a serious and honest discussion that's nor just a reiterration of those same old talking points. "PAY YOUR DEBT OR YOU SHALL BE DISHONORED, PEON!" is a mentality which serves nobody but the guys living off that tasty compound interest. You know, the same people who'll happily pay themselves a nice big bonus after just having been bailed out by the general public. Have a look at this link. Those numbers are peer reviewed. See the total outstanding amount? Yes, that's 1.54 trillion $. And here you guys are, getting worked up about how a guy defaulted on his student loans. Do I think that guy acted responsibly or that he has any right to compare himself to today's struggling students? Not at all.
Are all of you getting worked up about minor issues while the elephant in the room has just grabbed grandma and is about to stomp the couch? Absolutely.
No need for sarcasm, Gumbo. I'll just leave this here. It's a PDF. Just jump to the conclusion if you don't want to read it all, you can still go over the whole thing if you want. Once you're done, why not have a look at what The Bank of England itself has to say about the matter. When you're done, why don't you tell me if SOMEONE OWNED the money prior to giving it to him. You're welcome.Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the
borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. [...] In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending, nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are
available. As with the relationship between deposits and loans, the relationship between reserves and loans typically operates in the reverse way to that described in some economics textbooks.
I don't understand this thread and why people in the comments are crucifying this guy. What are the consequences of paying credit cards and rent on time but ignoring the student loan?
I don't have the slightest clue. But I'd like to know. Could actually be working to some degree and make a change in such weird systems as 30years of debt for the opportunity to earn money. To me that's the only interesting thought in the whole article.
The issue isn't really with the people making the loans (banks etc) so much as it is with the colleges and universities who have steadily increased tuition at unprecedented rates for the last several years. (Which, by the way, is one of the things that made me suspicious about this article: the student loan debt bubble is an issue of the 2000s, not an issue of the 1980s, which is when this author went to college. So it seemed to me weird he was bemoaning what is commonly acknowledged as a recent problem of our times when, at the time this guy was in college, tuition on average was about 5k/year ) The real equivalent solution would be if everyone stopped going to college. Then the colleges would not have income and would be forced to lower prices to a more reasonable level. Student loans are just another form of loan. It's like a mortgage. They are not inherently bad. The people collecting on the loans that students committed to repaying are not the bad people here. It is the schools who are gauging students based off of - as you say - the potential that they will earn more money with a degree as opposed to without. And in 1985, a college degree was a lot more than a promise of a job or a promise to earn more. Back then it was much closer to a guarantee.
Heya. Not to be a negative nancy... I worked for a company that gathered information on deceased and incarcerated individuals who still owed Student Loans via the Department of Education. ...as far as I know - Dying and being in Prison (the later which only freezes it) are the only way(s) to "get out" of a student loan. At least, as far as the DoE is concerned. It has, though, been a few years... but I'm pretty sure you're not going to be done with this for quite some time, even if you think you are. Good luck during tax time and any income coming in :/
(Yes, they can/will garnish wages - again, though... been a few years)
The Brunner Test. You can also be in a persistent vegetative state. I think the age of this guy's loans is the reason the government hasn't ruined his life.
If you don't have the drive or natural talent to do something VERY WELL, then don't go in debt getting a degree in the field. It is as simple as that. Other people paid for this person to go through college. And he thinks he has the right to just "not pay them back". That is a ridiculous amount of entitlement right there. If you do not think getting a professional degree in a certain field will help you pay back your loans, you should probably not take out a loan. I do not want to turn this into a discussion of "To STEM or not to STEM", but people these days seem to think that getting a degree is required, and since it's required, "I might as well get it in something I like!" You do not need a degree to be an artist - musically, graphically, or otherwise. That is a genuine passion for a field that you can teach yourself. Going into debt to learn to draw, write (creatively, not grammatically), or play an instrument is absolutely asinine. These are hobbies, not professions. You get a degree for a profession.
I think the thing that makes me the craziest is the way this guy hopped on the current movement in our culture of sympathy toward students that is galvanizing a review of tuition and new policies. When our collective moral outrage on this issue doesn't even apply to him. Thirty years ago the proportion of tuition to earnings wasn't near what it is now. He could, actually, have paid off one degree. This guy reminds me of those people who make their kids sick so they can tell everyone they have cancer. He's lying about what his circumstances actually are to garner our sympathy and justify his abhorrent moral code.
His advice is absolutely relevant. The story he tells to support this advice is not relevant. It's not even complete and the parallels he draws between himself and the students of today are false. I find it crass to couple his choice to pursue three ivy league degrees thirty years ago with the impossible task of pursuing one degree today.
This is interesting in comparison to the UK, where the loan is just written off after 30 years, and there isn't any sort of moral pressure to pay it. The idea seems to be that if you are well paid, you should retrospectively pay for your education, and otherwise the government will pay.
I can try based on what I know and what I've experienced but an accountant or bankruptcy lawyer could do better. The Federal government is the largest lender of student loans in the country. It's supposed to get people who otherwise couldn't get into school afford to do so with low interest loans. When I started school 10-15 years ago there were also a bunch of private banks throwing money at students with private loans that were in some cases easier to get and had fewer restrictions on what you could do with the money. As far as I can tell this was because in the late nineties Congress amended bankruptcy rules so that student debt cannot be discharged through bankruptcy protection. So Discover, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and the lot will give you $10,000 that you can use for housing, living expenses, a car payment at a low rate, but not as low as the government. It seems most of them hopped off this gravy train after the recession hit as private loans seem to be harder to get. I looked when I thought about going back to school. So that's fucked up that this bill for upwards of six figures can follow you around forever even after a court declares you insolvent but another issue here is the emphasis on going to college for every kid exiting high school. We have a shitload of colleges and universities that are not selective about their students and some argue exist only to milk them out of this loan money. We even have colleges that are for-profit institutions where they don't even try very hard not to admit they are companies driven by profit. The Obama administration just tried to put the crackdown on them but I'm not following the story so I don't know what they did. I kinda veered off there, I'm not saying going to college is a bad idea, but the way we pay for it here is messed up and a whole generation is walking around with $20,000, $40,000, $80,000, $100,000 dollars in debt before they even begin their career and the government is making a profit off this. You can get on the moral high horse about making a bad decision and living with the consequences, or working hard or picking a practical major but the message for a long time was "you just need a college degree, it doesn't matter in what," and 18 year-olds aren't exactly financial gurus so setting yourself up to be in the hole every month for 10-30 years isn't a problem many of them consider. Myself at that age included. There's the forgiveness option I mentioned, 25 or 30 years of on time payment of the minimum and the remaining balance is discharged for federal loans. There are some public service forgiveness options if you become a teacher. The debt can be discharged entirely but it's ridiculously hard to do. You have to A) die or B) prove that you are so disabled that you will never be able to make enough money to pay anything on your loan. A bankruptcy attorney told me about a case where a single mother who was disabled and in poverty couldn't have her loans discharged because she couldn't satisfactorily prove that at some point in the future she won't be unable to make payments.
In the UK, you have to pay 10% (I think) of your wages towards it for the first 30 years, but after that its completely gone. Also, it doesn't affect your credit score at all.