|
|
|
December 17, 2005
High priced nihilism leads to involuntary servitude!
Dr. Helen has an excellent post about debt. I always laugh when I read articles such as this that describes why young people are in debt. The cause--rising college costs and easy access to credit cards they say. Uh, could it possibly have something to do with making $42,000 a year and spending $25,000 on your wedding? I realize this is not an expensive wedding but if you are in debt and crying about leading a "poor lifestyle" at the age of 29, it seems like you would pay off your debts first and have a tasteful but inexpensive wedding.The problem, of course, is a lack of self-discipline, aggravated by lenders who can spot that lack of self discipline as quickly as a vulture can spot fresh roadkill. The kids aren't really roadkill, of course, so that's not really a fair analogy. But I do think that debt -- especially student loan debt -- is the closest thing we have to modern indentured servitude. Despite this problem, there's a regular, ongoing campaign to make the government stop so-called "payday lending" as a form of exploitation that "hurts the poor." This Philadelphia Inquirer editorial if a good example: Were payday loans less available, no one would go homeless. Loans this size are not useful for major purchases such as a car, washing machine, or to replace a leaky roof.Is it the government's proper role to protect people from their own lack of self discipline? I'm not trying to be a moralist here or point the finger at anyone. I've incurred terrible debts, and I'm probably a lot more guilty than the average person. What I want to know is, by what standard are we to decide which form of debt is more harmful, and which debtors more deserve to be seen as victims? As the MSN article cited above makes clear, debts incurred by middle class college kids often haunt them for the rest of their lives. For reasons that aren't clear to me, there's a lot less sympathy for the student loan victims than the payday loan victims. That's despite the fact that "payday loans" are dischargeable in bankruptcy, while student loans are not. I think student debt is the closest thing we have to indentured servitude. (Well, at least there's no debtor's prison.) But clearly, I missing something. Obviously, there are moral issues, but what are they? Assuming that the debt problem is grounded in a lack of discipline compounded by gullibility, why are the gullible working poor more deserving of sympathy and government protection than the gullible middle class kids? Is it because they're more likely to become a public burden? Certainly it can't be that the middle class is less willing to escape their debts, otherwise the student loans would be as dischargeable as any other form of debt. Might the idea be to keep the middle class working -- no matter what? After all, someone has to pay the taxes to "fix" these problems. (At least in theory, bankruptcy is not supposed to make class distinctions between poor and middle class.) Considering the sort of Deconstructionist nonsense which passes as education these days, the cynic in me wonders whether it's worth a life of indebtedness. Lots of kids don't know why they're going to college, and some of them know less when they come out than they did when they went in. I'm not saying that the latter group of college students are in the majority, but I've sure as hell met some. And at the risk of being a bore, to the extent that kids are going to college to learn the intricacies of nihilist thought, I would humbly suggest that there are less expensive ways to do that. In real life, nihilism can be had for nothing. Plus, nihilism is less than worthless, so why not get more nothing for less money? Going into debt for nothing makes less than no sense.
posted by Eric on 12.17.05 at 09:40 AM
Comments
Very thoughtful. Wisdom might come late, but you sure have it. I'm also wondering whether the spigot of student loan money has helped fuel the astronomically escalated tuition costs. I just don't see the value in what they're supposedly getting for the huge sums spent. Some of the most successful people I've known didn't finish college, and one didn't go at all. Where do people get the idea that a college education (especially when goals are unclear) is worth sacrificing one's life savings, and getting into permanent debt? Might there come a point where people will just say "No thanks"? Eric Scheie · December 17, 2005 10:52 PM """I'm also wondering whether the spigot of student loan money has helped fuel the astronomically escalated tuition costs.""" I think so. Last chart I saw showed tuition climbing at over 2x the rate of inflation, and Guarenteed Student Loans/Suplemental Student Loans etc. climbing with it, without the commersate increase in grants. At 38 I'll probably finish paying off my Student Loans this year, and start assisting my daughter with her college. Note *assisting*. My parents pretty much paid my health insurance, and about 1/2 my rent while I picked up the rest--through the GI Bill, working, and Student Loans. Petro · December 17, 2005 11:27 PM My parents flat-out told me that they couldn't pay for college, and then very helpfully taught me the secret of getting scholarships (which is to learn, people— there's no shortcut to good grades!) I wrangled multiple scholarships that added up to full tuition, but the pity is that I am paying student loans for living expenses, because even though my parents did not support me financially (and there was no way we could prove that, so they took the tax write-off), their income was still the one taken into account when my financial aid was computed. I took the idea of them not paying so much to heart that one semester, when my aid paperwork got screwed up and the check was a full two months late, and I ended up running out of money and food, I never thought to call my parents, something for which they berated me later. But maintaining scholarships (something that pleased my parents, as they lost theirs) and managing my own finances taught me something important: I'm sure as heck making my OWN kids pay too! :) B. Durbin · December 22, 2005 12:38 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think your analysis is correct, but you haven't gone back far enough in the diagnosis. You're starting in the middle.
It has become standard practice for kids to go to college incurring huge loans, but they are also taking a lot of the money from their parents. Parents are mortgaging houses or making life planning decisions to have that money available for their kids, when Suzie decides she wants to go to college. We're inundated with TV commercials, showing noble and self-sacrificing parents, handing over their life savings for little Suzie. It would be OK if these messages were balanced with "Here's Suzie in her 40s with her debt strapped and spent parents living in her spare bedroom" but we hear just the opposite. "You don't owe your parents anything!"
It has also become common practice for parents to present their kids with their first car and paying their auto insurance, as if teaching them to walk and buying them their first pair of shoes is now extended to providing them with all means of transportation.
Who made the decision that these kids will GO to college? It isn't the kid's decision. It's the parents decision and they're intentionally saddling their kids with the debt, or controlling them for incurring the debt, on their behalf.
Is it any wonder that this generation believes they are entitled to the return on their labor, before they've invested their labor?
Stop the cycle by raising children who buy their first car and fund their own college educations. If they want it, then they have to earn it. No more college loans from parents or the government.
So many people misunderstand the Biblical teaching "neither a borrower nor a lender be." They think it has something to do with money, but it is about control and tyranny, not money. It has everything to do with the concepts of teaching people how to fish rather than giving them the fish. When you "lend" someone the money to go to college you have taken away from them the ability to earn it first and then reap their OWN rewards. You have denied them the opportunity to make choices, prioritizing their resources (both time and money). The money owed is just the symptom. You have made someone beholden to you, obligated, in ways far beyond money.
If they don't want to earn the money to pay for it BEFORE they do it, then they've learned nothing. The most important lesson in life is about earning what you reap. These kids are denied that lesson by their controlling parents. It's immoral in the extreme.
And I, too, am just as guilty as anyone for making horrid financial decisions. Wisdom comes far too late in this matter.