Huh.

24 Percent of Millennials Expect Student Debt Forgiveness

A study released Nov. 12 by Junior Achievement and PwC US finds that 24 percent of millennials expect their student loans will ultimately be forgiven. The average amount of cumulative student debt for undergraduates in the class of 2012 was $26,885, according to a recent Pew Research report. The average debt for 2013 graduates is expected to be even higher. "It's a scary statistic," says Jack Kosakowski, president of Junior Achievement, which co-sponsored the Ypulse survey. But the optimism might not be too far off base, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency estimates that 25 percent of the U.S. workforce is employed by a public service employer, and "many may be eligible for existing student loan repayment benefits, including Public Service Loan Forgiveness," according to the CFPB website. In June, President Obama issued an executive action to expand eligibility years for the student loan forgiveness program, which eliminates a portion of the debt for graduates who work full-time in qualifying public sector or nonprofit jobs.

From "24 Percent of Millennials Expect Student Debt Forgiveness"
CNBC.com (11/12/14) Langfield, Amy

How do we continue to pay for the one out of four of us that work in a job that doesn't produce anything? Eventually we all go broke.

it's kind of a misleading stat since the survey didn't ask why the students thought their loan would be forgiven. IF they suspect more jobs will start paying back their loans as part of their compensation, then that's actually kind of reasonable.

This is the problem with my generation. Everyone expects everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Well but the optimistic side of that is that we dont "produce" material things because those things can be made cheaper and more efficiently elsewhere or through machines. It's good for our actual needs to be cheap and easily available.

Now, this might not be the best thing for the country RELATIVE to other countries. Because with advancements in technology, it's easier to get jobs to places where someone will perform it for the cheapest. And since we're at the top, we're not as desperate or willing to work for as little as other places. And for a lot of heavy labor "producing" jobs there isn't really an inherent advantage we have that make it more appealing for the job to stay in the US.

But i'm optimistic that the overall effect will end up with EVERYONES standard of living improving--just some at a faster rate than others.

What fascinates me is seeing how the automation of jobs goes in the future. It seems scary at first: if machines can do every job, everyone is unemployed. But the other side is that if machines can produce everything, they're gonna be really cheap. AND because humanity as a whole has this extra free time, we can allocate it to progressing further in other ways -- like the rocket we just sent to a comet.

Sorry StupMan, I'm not buying that thought process.

My thoughts are that due to the debt forgiveness to mortgage borrowers who were underwater and businesses who got bailouts from the govt, many student loan borrowers are thinking they'll be afforded the same treatment. Should be interesting to see how it all folds out in the next few years.

yeah, that's a decent point. moral hazard and all that.

One major thing i think we should reform about student loans is giving them to these internet for-profit colleges that really are just set up to get the loan money and dont provide much useful education.

the whole thing kind of makes me re-think my view on school vouchers for kids.

My son has student loan debt and is a teacher. If he is with his school for two more years (after his current year - a total of five) up to $17,000 of his debt will be forgiven.

"What fascinates me is seeing how the automation of jobs goes in the future. It seems scary at first: if machines can do every job, everyone is unemployed. But the other side is that if machines can produce everything, they're gonna be really cheap. AND because humanity as a whole has this extra free time, we can allocate it to progressing further in other ways -- like the rocket we just sent to a comet."

This does nothing more than limit the available jobs. Today you are a banker tomorrow you are a rocket scientist (or other tech position) and will be hired because?

in Louisiana, if you go to work for the state government, after 10 years your debt is forgiven (not sure if it extends to teachers, local city or parish govt, etc)...and you make no payments during that 10 years. leave before 10 years, and all the interest that was accumulating is tacked on as well...

so the decision for many is do you take a job that pays, on average, about 65-70% of market rate for 10 years to offset your debt. and since yo're employed by the state, you have state retirement and no social security tax.

From collegedata.com comes this:I don't mean this to sound biased but your average kid and/or his parents is going to have to get that money himself. Scholarships are for the brightest, most athletic or those that fall into diversity quota categories.

"... i'm optimistic that the overall effect will end up with EVERYONES standard of living improving..."

Misplaced optimism in my view.

Might as well say that osmosis will elevate everyone's standard of living.

Well i was thinking more big picture long-term view for humanity. What you're describing is one of the issues we need to think about --especially with the speed at which technology is advancing. We need some way to bridge the gap, but long term the cheaper "needs" would make it easier to switch careers as we evolve into having new desired fields for humanity.

you think cheaper, more easily available basic needs is a bad thing? Would you prefer it if water was $50 a gallon and you had to pay for oxygen?

Does that 1 out of 4 include teachers who "don't produce anything"? Just curious.

I would say that 25% of the teachers do not produce anything but the other 75% produce Doctors, bankers lawyers, trash collectors...

We all work for banks...what do we "produce"?

click traffic for BOL?

[/i]"you think cheaper, more easily available basic needs is a bad thing? Would you prefer it if water was $50 a gallon and you had to pay for oxygen?"[i]


Cheaper relative to what, Stupendous Man?

Teachers, at least if they are allowed to teach and run a classroom rather than to kowtow to ill-conceived bureaucratic edicts, produce educated students. You know better than that, raitchjay.

It's burgeoning government bureaucracy that doesn't produce anything.

It's burgeoning government bureaucracy that doesn't produce anything.

Gridlock is something.

I know good teachers are very valuable commodities; my question was whether they fall under the "people who don't produce anything" category that Pale mentioned, since evidently "people who don't produce anything" aren't very valuable members of society.

You know better than that so why pose that question.

Sorry. I shouldn't have questioned it.

I'll move along.

:baaaaaaaaaaaaaa:

::munches grass, waits to be sheared::

The human resources required to acquire them.

I thought I answered it?

Ed, noelekal had actually also responded to me. I had therefore moved on and responded to his response to me.

My firm produces the capital to build the infrastructure of the future, finance the entrepreneurial dreams of the Gates, Jobs and Mas of the world. I don't know what your bank finances.

Are you in compliance?

Question: which specific jobs are you thinking of when you say they dont "produce" anything?

hatred from our fellow man because we are all evil?

Just remember, the "Star Trek" vision ofthe future is future fiction...and future fiction RARELY comparts to future reality.

That would be a big NO raitch. I have not been in compliance since March of 2005.

That is very deep Sam

Congrats on getting out of a "non-producing" job i guess.

Are you sure that you were in compliance when you were in compliance.

maybe you should get back in, as ayour bank is paying a portion of a $3b fine (along with several others) about interest rate conversion and price manipulation.

I would argue that compliance does produce something - they are (or should be) involved in account agreements, providing disclosures, reviewing and implementing regulatory changes, and many other tasks. And they certainly have produced more than my fair share of headaches.

Regulators, government bureaucrats, agencies like the EPA, Education, IRS, those types of government in general....they produce nothing, they live off confiscating the wealth of others.

The bureaucracy must be decreased soon, or we will look like old Europe sooner than later. I want my children to be more prosperous than I was, same as our parents wanted for us.

Growing government is not the answer.

You are right Hap! There needs to be integrity in the system. The currency market trades about $5 trillion each day — 100 times more than the New York Stock exchange's $50 billion in daily trades. The profits are enormous, so a $3 billion fine is barely a rounding error. I would not want to be the compliance officer in the FX department. You have to track these guys to make sure they are not on a multitude of social media sites.

You're right SM, that many employers use this as an incentive for employment. But I think the real issue is more "give me" than anything. 1 in 4 expect to have the debt forgiven, I don't think 24% of college kids realize that there are job opportunities that will pay for your education in return for a 5, 7, 10, etc year commitment. In this instance I'd expect that forgiven means just that....forgiven.

But on the other hand. 24% expect the debt to be forgiven, someone still has to pay for it. Who? Taxpayers, govt, colleges......for the 76% left, how many are actually going to turn into credit-worthy individuals and repay the loan in full? So if we account for another 24% [I have not basis for this number] that will eventually become charged-off loans, that leaves only roughly half of the student loans being repaid. Who pays for that 24%? The creditors....you, me, pale, raitch,.....those of us in the banking sector.

So I can't envision that this is really a good thing.

I expect my loan debt to be forgiven when I submit my final payment. My wife will be the same. We're millennials. She got some grants when she started her education degree (which she is now repaying since she didn't go into education in the end), and there are many programs for teaching in higher risk areas that if you "serve time" there for X amount of years, your debt can be forgiven. I'm perfectly fine with that, and those districts would never attract the amount of quality teachers they need without programs like that.

Not to be totally cynical about my generation, but I would guess most that are expecting loan forgiveness are expecting it to be forgiven "just because", not because they did something to earn that. There's a lot broken with the system. It'd be great to see some of the programs that have come out in other countries in the recent past. Germany, for instance, or Finland, Sweden, or a host of others that are going a radically different direction from our constantly skyrocketing tuition costs, with constantly skyrocketing expectations from employers of the qualifications of an entry-level job.

You have to go to college (or a trade school, or similar path) if you want to get anywhere, then take a low paying job with high loan payments and just suffer through it for the first 10+ years. Suffering is good, especially for those that haven't yet had the benefit of learning the value of a dollar. If you have to turn down going to Starbucks every morning because you have debt to pay, you'll end up being a much more financially responsible adult.

Trying to steer this away from politics and back to the topic at hand, which is a relevant one to me. I'm super happy and thankful that I had an employer prepared to offer tuition assistance to allow me to continue in my education. I'm not sure how I'd have done it otherwise, but I'd definitely not have been able to afford the full loan payments on my teller income when I first started working here!

IRS obtainsp funds to provide roads and military. Regulators enforce rules we, as a society, have decided we want put into place. bureaucrats provide the support and infastructure for them. EPA enforces environmental rules society has decided they want and need to be enforced collectively.

Now, obviously there are huge issues with corruption and inefficiency and waste. And we should constanly be trying to improve the system and adapt to changing circumstances.

But this is how society works. Some things have to be done collectively and there will always be disagreements over how and what should be included in that.

Nor can I, burkemi.

While I don't disagree that we need less government intrusion, isn't the topic of this thread about higher education (and the slackers who don't think they should be responsible for repaying their debt)? It would appear getting an education is a key to productivity. But what do I know?

You can thank minimum wage and unionization for this.



You can thank welfare for this.




Funny how globalization has not improved the standard of living for everyone and yet it has caused one countries economic problems into all of our economic problems.




Automation always comes at a price. Once the price of labor becomes unattractive then automation is the only rational alternative. Yet we keep having people pushing for increasing minimum wage. All an increase in minimum wage does is prevents the lowest skilled workers in society from getting an opportunity to procure such skills.




Good teachers are a commodity. The problem with them is that they mostly all unionized. They cannot be fired no matter how ineffective they are, and they earn a wage not consistent with the demand for their position. Counties need to increase property taxes to pay for them, driving down home prices and driving up the supply of teachers. With an increase in the supply of teachers comes more and more ineffective teachers.




I have to ask you if you have ever taken an economics class before? Banks produce money. They don't print money but they produce it. How can that be? It is called Fraction Reserve Banking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Radical solution for higher education (and where i hope it ends up). Instead of subsidizing learning how we do now, take that money and fund the [censored] out of a free, online school. An actual on-line college, not university of phoenix. more like khan university. It's kind of crazy that with the advancements in technology that has make knowledge more easily available, tuitiion prices have gone through the roof.

Funny how there is a serious disconnect between what bureaucrats want and what the public wants. I don't remember voting for any regulator or anyone in the EPA.

it's not just you. like it or not a majority of voters voted for the guys who put these things in place.

But i do agree there are tons of places where things get inserted that people dont actually want. The system has holes, hopefully we fix them eventually.

With all due respect I have to disagree here....at least to the portion of "...fund the [censored] out of a free, online school." If you're going to fund it, then fund it to a free brick-and-mortar college system. Yes, technology has provided a fast and easy avenue for quick knowledge...but at what cost? People still NEED to interact with real people.

Have you ever taken an online class, burkemi?
There's discussion groups and group projects, etc., all of it done online via skpe or chats or phone calls.
A goodly portion of annual costs for college is allotted to living expenses. Those who live off campus have to buy bus tickets or gas for their cars, etc.
The cost for all that brick and mortar to house teachers and hold classes is pricing college out of reach for far too many.
Yet technology is removing large numbers of blue collar jobs.
Affordable education is, imo, the best solution.

I do think having interpersonal interaction is an essential part of the education process. Or maybe I'm just remembering the dorm experiences of college...

Seriously, TR this is so true. My return to education was with a brick and mortar private university located about a hundred miles from here, that happened to have a satellite campus locally. I attended about half of my courses there, and begrudgingly did the rest online. The online courses not only required more time and focus, but more interaction with the other students than my in-person courses did. They are serious about their accreditation, and applying their brick and mortar standards across their online and satellite models, do the extent that they have a quickly growing international student base.

It was more work, thus not my favorite at the time, but I got a lot out of it. This surely isn't the case with the diploma-mill style schools, but it's proof that this is absolutely a viable education method. It was more expensive than a state school, but it provided the flexibility I needed as a non-traditional student to get my degree while working full time.

Truffle...please allow me to clarify. I'm not trying to suggest that there is no place for online classes or colleges. I understand fully the financial restrictions that commuting to college and living on college represent. During my years of college I was involved with both roles...a commuter my first year, a dorm student for the remainder. I will admit that I have never taken an online class. However, I have been part of online "meetings" and online "conferences" where there is an open phone-line set to speaker and occasionally a computer image of someone(s) privy to the meeting. I can't imagine that the experience would differ too greatly from the discussion groups and group projects that you referenced. If I am wrong in that thought then I will humbly accept your rebuke. But the point of my original "argument" is that if a system were developed to provide free or at least reduced cost college education, it should encourage true interaction person-to-person-to-person. I'm of the age that I'm supposed to be all in favor or doing everything online and all this other "stuff." But the truth of it is...these people I've "met" online and even seen through a computer screen - its not personal interaction. It is digital interaction. A computer.

many businesses, having hired people from online universities, have come to realize that many of these are simply diploma mills that will generate a diploma after you've paid upwards of $40,000 over 3-4 years for the privilige of attending online...and therefore now advertise for "college degree from a recognizable college or university", in other words, not one of the diploma mills.

I was shocked when a couple of co-workers told me how much their degree from University of Phoenix cost them, and then further shocked that a local state university would not accept them into their masters program with that undergraduate degree.

not meant to be an indictment of online schools, just that not are all as respected or credible as others.

Very few can afford to dedicate years of their life to pursuing a degree. Most of us work and study and live lives all at the same time. To that end, the old academic world must catch up and adapt to the present worlds needs. Matt's experience is probably the best of both worlds, sans the savings that needs to somehow become part of the world of higher education.

They might have voted for the people to be put in place but almost measurably they did not vote for the laws. The lawmakers created problems that they needed to fix to justify their existence. There have been many polls out there that suggest the majority of Americans do not support the EPA, Fed, FCC, Dept of Ag (who produces nothing) and the CFPB.

Since we were all here when the CFPB was created we can use that as an excellent example. Has the CFPB stopped this supposed predatory lending or Wall Street Banks from taking advantage of people? A: No. No one knows what a Wall Street Bank is and the Fed. Gov't was responsible for the actions that lead to the 2006 market collapse. The CFPB has done absolutely nothing except for fine people and organizations that are largely not banks, for otherwise legal activities.

Well put. But that does not mean that online degrees are effective at teaching or that their merit is equal to traditional programs.

Again, not disputing the need nor the necessity of online programs. Their use applies and is valid to so very many people. But to your quote, "Very few can afford to dedicate years of their life to pursuing a degree." I think that this is where the meat of this conversation is cut. Usually (certainly not always) coming straight from high school, options are limited. Go to school, get a job, join the military, attend vocational school, or marry your high-school love. I realize that other options are there, but it seems reasonable to assume that most HS grads will fall into one of these 5 categories (and I am not trying to say that any are more right nor more wrong than others) To that end, it appears that there are more that can "afford" it then can't. Perhaps the ability to afford the time is being confused with many of this generation's "I want it, and I want it 5 minutes ago," mentallity.

As you've said, Matt's experience exemplifies both worlds. And its wonderful that the option was avaialbe...Again, not trying to "diss" online college, just don't think it should be the 1st choice if other viable choices exist.

Colleges have more attendance now than ever, at least in Louisiana...they are turning students away because there are not enough instructors, dorm rooms, classrooms, etc to hold them. So, i'd say that more than ever people can, and do, dedicate years of their lives to a degree.



College is often the first "real world" experience kids get, living outside the home, having to be adults, make adult decisions. While traditional college may not fit for everyone, the role and how it serves that role is suited to many. Until we see declining enrollment at schools, i don't see them make a change to their brick and mortar ways. Sure, some will offer online courses, but their bread and butter comes frorm on-campus schooling, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Well said.

fixed for accuracy.

it would be difficult to have an online football program

i'm pretty darn good at online football though

^^^^ must be one of those fan duel guys...

i don't know Ed, many institutions of "higher learning" have no football programs, and remain profitable as schools. some, gasp, have no sports programs at all that are NCAA sanctioned.

some sort of cult?