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.