nytimes.com— The unemployment report was genuinely good, but there’s a downside: the calls to stop focusing on job creation.
Feb 6, 2012View in Crawl 4
"...our economy remains deeply depressed...fewer workers employed than in January 2001 — zero growth after 11 years...even at January’s pace of job creation it would take us until 2019 to return to full employment."
If ONLY Obama was a progressive...because he's NOT, he's a Goddamn centrist.
See, many of us on the left are a bit miffed at the man and, as evidenced by his very public scolding of progressive liberals, the feeling's mutual.
I know this ruins your whole world view, but I don't really give a f**k about your small mind and big mouth that ENDLESSLY spews this nonsense.
I'm tired of hearing the demonstrably false "facts" of idiots like yourself who are either too lazy and/or partisan to fact check their bulls**t talking points.
Stop whining and man up.Progressives cant get all they want, and the ones who whine because they cant are not helping the country, the president or the rest of us. Liberals don't get all they want. But I will support Obama over the alternative and try to get what we want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
My comment specifically called out the mislabeling of Obama as a progressive, and since you neither asserted the contrary of my opinion nor showed support for that of bluto36, I'm left to wonder what the point of your comment was -- other than the ad hominem, obviously.
And actually, progressives CAN have everything they want. Perhaps you have never heard of the second bill of rights?
The right to a job;
The right to earn enough to pay for food and clothing;
The right of businessmen to be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies;
The right to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
(Sounds awful, doesn't it? BTW, in countries where they follow progressive policy, life is pretty f**king sweet.)
The more you know...the less likely you are to vote Republican.
I have many Canadian and European friends who think Obama is conservative and the right wing in America is off the wall nuts. I agree with them.
Meanwhile the freaking morons conservatives here call him a socialist. America is full of f**king ignorant redneck idiots!
Jesus Christ there are so many of you f**king teatard morons! Go to school, get out of your Texas suburb, and f**king learn it's a big world out there and you ain't the center of it.
Some of the crap we are in is due to perception. If people believe things are getting better then maybe they will be more likely to buy. Maybe small or midsize business will be a bit more willing to hire because people are buying just a bit more. The numbers may not be there just yet, but if people believe things are getting better (which they are), then maybe we won't be afraid to take a step forward.
Well that is most of what controls the economy, positive attitudes which affect buying as well as production and to some extent wages. As long as foreign countries are confident in our currency and production, our only problem is our own opinions of our economy.
CO2 concentrations in Atmosphere have swamped the ocean's ability to maintain pH of 8.23. Carbonate balance between runoff from land and deposition by Sea is knocked for a loop by over 2ppm addition of CO2 per year and rising.. Feedback of methane release from Arctic areas in particular are looking like they may be starting to take off. Global Warming Potential of Methane is higher than thought and quantities are huge in frozen condition and in land based permafrost going unstable with melt.. So there is no lost decade as systems collapse, economic theory is kept separate from scientific findings which have potential to reverse the course toward extinction. Double booked. Earth of economists and money vs That of properties of greenhouse gasses released to the sky.. But Nature and thermodynamics forces its books to account. To account for our wonton release of greenhouse gasses to the sky. No lie. http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/gary-housers-rebuttal-realclimates.html
The unemployment numbers aren't real. They don't count people who have stopped looking for work etc. If you take an honest look at the numbers they don't add up. Things are bad and they're not going to change for awhile. As for forgiving student debt I believe something needs to change. Starting your working life with a huge debt to pay is awful. I say mabye someone needs to look at the huge amounts of money those in the world of higher education make.
The revenue sports (football and basketball, primarily) are just that: they bring revenue to the university. Do you know why they have a big-ass stadium and coaches paid millions of dollars? It's not because the university loves sports. It's because the university loves money. They bring in far more money than they cost. Not just in ticket sales, but in promoting the university and encouraging donations.
Don't like tuition rates? You definitely wouldn't like them if sports were eliminated.
We need to remove sports entertainment from academic schools and create sports schools for them to train and play for.
Academic schools need to provide only academics without the distraction of sports for everyone concerned.
Sports don't distract from academics, sports provide funding for academics. In the bigger schools the athletic programs raise millions of dollars that go back to the academic portion of the school. Also sports keep alumni involved with the school. If there wasn't sports people would eventually loose touch with the school they went to. By providing athletics it keeps the alumni involved with the school. Also, if you don't think alumni can provied a lot, I think my school got about $30 million in funding this year from alumni.
Not in every school. In fact, in the case of several smaller 2 year colleges, sports adds NOTHING to the budget, it's simply a recruitment tool, to recruit tools.
Sure. One of the biggest things I think we learn from sports, IMO, is teamwork. There's also leadership, selflessness, humility, competitiveness, physical fitness, etc...
Here's a couple of more things:
"The great value of sport is that it teaches us to recognize the difference between winning and striving for excellence, the better but much harder achievement. More important, sports teaches us how to handle failure, to get up and try again when we lose. That's the most valuable lesson, since we lose more than we win in life."
"We believe that sports are important because of the values that can be learned,
including good sportsmanship, believing in others and learning that others can help us
achieve more by being united than by acting on our own self-interest."
Good points, now let's looking at the funding of sports vs academics? What is held up to a more social acceptance. The football player or the smart kid? Notice I didn't go with the obvious nerd vs jock but you get the picture. Team work is important in life but if you are uneducated or limited in education you will make a great long term team member at a fast food establishment.
"Good points, now let's looking at the funding of sports vs academics?"
I'd be interested to see a comparison on the funding because many schools have sports programs that bring in much more than they spend.
"What is held up to a more social acceptance. The football player or the smart kid?"
Sadly it is often the football player at the cost of the smart kid. Why can't it be both? Greatness in sports is generally achieved from hard work, leadership, team work, etc... That deserves recognition as a good thing. Academic excellence is just as important, more depending on the situation, and should be just as highly sought after.
The point is that sports is an important part of education for many people. That doesn't need to take away from anything else, it just is.
"... teaches the difference between winning and striving for excellence"
Music, art, and academics, generally, require a striving for excellence, the pursuit of which is (too often) sweetened with the notion that there's a prize for the win- er uh -- most excellent striver.
I agree with you on the unemployment numbers. They are totally fake.
But as for student debt, got news for you: Having a huge debt to pay is awful for EVERYONE. And it's a hell of a lot better to have a huge debt when you're young, healthy and energetic and have a lifetime ahead of you than being older, having a family to support and looking at how to have a stable retirement.
No one should be handed free money, but if you had to choose, young people are the last on the list.
Yes, I can totally see how it's so much better to be unable to find a job, a place to live, and a mode of transportation you can afford while paying your debts after not having had a chance to accumulate any sort of savings. I really feel sorry for the people who've had their whole lives to save for retirement and now receive social security, medicare, and other benefits that are specifically for old people. Let's not forget that their income isn't "earned" so it's taxed at a lower rate.
I'm not an advocate for student loan forgiveness, but you don't seem to understand that most loans are given out without the recipient's full understanding of how much they'll actually be paying (and that they probably won't find a job in their field).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What's the difference of starting off with debt from Student Loans or a $200-300k mortgage? Same difference.
It's the American way to be in debt. You don't own your home until 30 years later, you don't own your car until 5-6 years later, you don't own your education (and yourself actually), until 10-20 years later when your Student Loans are paid off.
One can walk away from a mortgage. One can declare bankruptcy. Your social security insurance benefits will NEVER be garnished to pay back a mortgage. The interest rates and penalties associated with student loans are illegal in every other area of lending, legal and otherwise.
The America way? Not this American, i have never been in debt for over $5000.00, and that was less than a month. I was taught to to be able to pay for what you buy upfront, i understand times are much different now, including the fact no one saves money. But your much better sacrificing when you are young, and living without need when you get older.
You have to refrain from the "shiny object syndrome". You must save and invest wisely. Young people that take the time to learn, can bypass many obstacles. "Think and Grow Rich"
My younger relatives just don't understand, iPhone, $100.00 a month cellphone bill, new car, new gadget every month, eating out all the time. Then they come to me and say, i ain't got no money, how did you get yours, then they don't believe me when i tell them. Oh well, live and learn. They will always be poor in their knowledge.
I have to ask though... doesn't the government know EXACTLY how many people are employed via the IRS records?
Why the slippy sliding numbers all the time? It should be very easy for the government to produce an exact and perfect account of employment in this country. But ... no... somehow they use a method of calculating that appears to be scientific, but in fact leaves a lot of wiggle room for debate. Why do you suppose that is? Hmmmmm... maybe for the same reason they do the same thing with the Inflation index? And the Scholastic Achievement standards? Maybe it is because they like to keep shuffling the goal posts around all the time? And keep people confused?
All the while, in reality, the employment numbers are very extremely well known by the IRS.
so your explanation for not getting real unemployment numbers from the government is ... what exactly? Or are you disputing that the IRS has the actual numbers? Just curious.
Just read jhw539's comment below. The real, verifiable numbers are publicly available. The headline numbers do not reflect the complete picture because they would be much less useful, in that form, as a gauge of the level of employment.
I'm a little curious about why you think the government "keeps people confused". Now that I read your original comment again, it sounds more like you think it's for political reasons than due to a satanic conspiracy. I've heard several talking heads on financial news programs state that the "real" unemployment rate is well over 20%. Nobody corrects them, even the people disagreeing with them about everything else, because it's common knowledge. It is just not a useful way to report the number for most conversations.
Right. I'm suggesting that the reason they are nebulous is because the two political parties use the numbers to "prove their case". However, the numbers themselves are concocted in a way that leaves the ordinary citizen confused as to which numbers are "real" vs "political spin" (are we at 8.5% or 20%). The effect of this is to further polarize the country because one side uses one set of numbers as "fact", and the other side uses the other set as "fact". This process could lead to civil unrest eventually, if not abated. My suggestion is that the public look toward the Real Numbers as presented by the facts as recorded by the IRS. They should know quite accurately exactly how many people are legally employed because all businesses have to report to them who is on the payroll. I don't see any reason other than "Politics" why this does not happen. Perhaps the factual information is available to the public, but if so, I never hear about that. I'd like to know where to find actual current employment statistics specifically. Do you happen to know?
Additionally, my question is... why do we not simply see, instead of six different calculations for unemployment (U1-U6), the one "Employment Percent" number? Certainly that would be much clearer than six different calculations for "unemployment".
My point is that by complicating the metric with six different measures, it confuses people. Why do that? Because it serves a political purpose to do so.
As for what jhw539 wrote, I'm sorry but he is a flagrant and insulting partisan on this issue. I read his post, but found myself wanting to thumbs down his comment, even though his suggestion to look up what U6 and U1 mean seems reasonable enough. Partisanship and insults on the subject of how to calculate and present factual information clearly ... a little too rabid for my tastes.
I'm sick of people claiming data is 'meaningless statistics' just because they personally don't understand them. The unemployment numbers are transparently collected and simply calculated. Yes Virgina, they are very real. Now, if you want to use the U6 number (which is almost twice as big as the U3 usually cited, but also trending down) good for you. But drop the bulls**t that there is some nefarious scheme being perpetrated against you just because you're too lazy to look up the methodology and clearly stated definitions. It makes you sound like an idiot or Republican.
What the hell does Bush have to do with it? The U3 unemployment statistic is the summation of a well publicized survey and analysis. Doesn't matter who is in office. If you want to bitch and moan about how "The unemployment numbers aren't real", then you're really just shouting "Hey, I'm too stupid to google for 60 seconds and find that the U6 statistic is publicly available and exactly what I just implied is being nefariously hidden!"
Although now you mention it, can you google up any raft of "Bush is lying about the unemployment rate by citing the U3!!!11!" nonsense? Or, like yelling "You lie!" during the state of the union or wagging fingers at him on the tarmac, is this kind of childish insults just a Republican thing now?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ok so all you just said was "I'm a partisan for the Liberal Cause and I hate Republicans because they're stupid". Very satisfying? For someone complaining about others "wagging fingers" you seem to have no problem doing so yourself. Oh well.
Per the Washington Post link you provided, all 4 levels of unemployment have been dropping. That is a good sign. We still have a long way to go but it's a positive sign......sort of like if you're on a boat and it gets flooded. Once the water in the boat begins to reduce, it means that your situation is getting better. However, you still have a lot of water to remove to get back to a dry boat.
@readmikenow:
Krugman specifically says that what makes the latest figures good news is precisely the opposite: the drop in unemployment doesn't simply represent an increase in the number of people who have stopped looking for work.
For those who deserve to go to college, I don't see how anyone can leave school with too much debt. Anyone can go to community college for two years, and in many cases the top 20-25% can go for free or cheap, often even free tuition to state schools after. Let's face it, only 1/3 of americans even get bachelor's degrees. Most people have the option to be educated at little to no cost. For those who take on massive debt without getting a degree that can properly support it, that is their own fault and foolishness.
That is not to say that education isn't vastly overpriced, just that there are highly affordable options for those who deserve to go to college.
I am from NJ and I promise you they have the NJ stars program which guarantees anyone in the top 20% of their graduating class can go to community college for the first two years tuition free, and then to any state school of their choosing for the next two years of their degree. The program even allows flexibility after high school graduation, so if a student couldn't afford living expenses for school, they could live at home and earn money after high school before starting the program. Were a student not a dependent of their parents however, they should be able to get state money to help cover living expenses though from what I understand.
We don't just need more jobs, we need better jobs. The BLS released their job projections through 2020 last Wednesday. 80% of the new jobs don't require a college degree; 85% don't require significant experience or training. Most of the income growth since the recession has been government transfers, not actual wage increases.
"80% of the new jobs don't require a college degree; 85% don't require significant experience or training"
The second half of that worries me (but then again, construction and such falls into that category) but the first part really doesn't bother me.
A BS/BA is basically a placeholder degree like the HS diploma was a generation ago. I'd rather we stop focusing on universal higher-education and instead focus on making sure people are doing smart things - going $100k in debt for a degree that provides no real work skills (say, Pre-Arabic Gay Turkish Underwater Basketweaving) is something we should discourage.
I'd love to also see special BS degrees in "hard" degrees (Accounting, Engineering, etc) that allow the person to skip all the "core" classes and just get what is really needed to work in that job. Sorry, I can't remember the last time one of the accountants that work with/for me ever what was learned in that British Literature class...
I'd like to see more job-focused education/training that prepares graduates the jobs of today & tomorrow, not the jobs of 30 years ago. We don't need more welders; we need people who can work in highly-automated manufacturing and advanced services.
I think that would be a GREAT idea... so long as you maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. And get a degree in a field that actually has a future. So glad we've got all this money just laying around with nothing to do...
"a college education, like a high school education, should be free."
I agree.
Then we can have the Department of Education take over the colleges and run them like our high schools. But why stop there, the government can give you a job too, when you get out, paid by taxpayers. You'll also need somewhere to live, government housing, that's next right. All for qualifying B students!
Your sense of entitlement isn't depraved, it is enlightened.
Seriously though, if corporations are so undeserving of the wealth they earn, why educate yourself to become appealing to them. Most skilled positions are employed by those evil companies. You don't need a college education to work the family store, or be a community organizer.
Notice how the "job creators" line has disappeared from the rhetoric of the Right. It was debunked quickly and easily, and shown to be the lie that it was. That doesn't mean that the jobs issue needs to go away. You won't hear your Congressman pushing for jobs though, and that's why there needs to be one goal above even 'job creation'; it's "Unelect Congress in 2012". Time to elect people who will actually do something.
Fact is it's private businesses that hire the bulk of the people. They are letting people go and not expanding. The only way to encourage them to hire more people is to allow them to keep MORE of their money by giving them tax breaks not by making it more expensive for them to hire people and raising their taxes. Government doesn't create jobs. It creates waste. You can deny it all you like but this is reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
That's a sweet falsehood that's already dead-in-the-water. I won't deny that private industry creates jobs, but I will deny that millionaires reaping massive bonuses and corporations raking in giant profits (and you can get dozens of examples in less than a minute if you look) is helping the job situation. Look at the numbers if you dare, but if you want to continue with that line of thinking, I suggest you don't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'm sorry. Repeating that something is debunked over and over again doesn't make it true.
"Notice how the "grass is green" line has disappeared from the rhetoric of the sane. It was debunked quickly and easily, and shown to be the lie that it was".
Please swallow that bulls**t and stop spewing it out.
While I understand where you are coming from, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion because you are not even touching on the single reason I would hire people - Demand. I own businesses in 3 countries, and it doesn't matter whether you let me keep 100% of my EBIT, if I have no more demand for what we're selling, then I have no reason to hire anyone!
The economy is so consumer driven and so dependent upon "Consumer Confidence"; I simply find it exasperating that everyone misses this in their arguments here. If there is no more Demand for products and services, then there is no hiring.
There are two sides to this economy: Supply *and* Demand. I keep seeing this "demand" only rhetoric spouted on digg as if they haven't seen demand driven economies before. Do you know what a demand style economy looks like? Go to communist Russia. Oh there was plenty of demand (lines going around the block) but since supply was utterly diminished (entrepreneurs and investors stripped of any financial power) the economy there was crap.
It is "consumer" driven as well as supply driven. If Apple didn't produce a IPAD there wouldn't be any demand for one.
Nothing like resorting to straw men examples, huh?
The U.S. has leaned too far to the supply side of the equation over the past 30 years and that's why demand dried up in the U.S. Absent significant hiring, demand can't be restored since people can't purchase goods with air and unicorn tears.
You're making the claim that the *only* way that there can be demand is if the government takes wealth and distributes it? Really? The last 30 years saw the rise of globalization (which has hurt the middle and lower income population). Tax cuts for the "rich" were actually tied to tax cuts for *everyone*.
I didn't make a strawman. I keep seeing "demand, demand, demand" over and over again without any mention of supply. I gave a example of what a demand style economy looks like. Do you disagree that the Russian people had plenty of demand but no supply to meet it?
We get your "catch 22" dilemma, but until businesses, such as yours, begin hiring in earnest in the U.S., it's consumer market and consumer demand will not be revived.
I realize many business owners are hoping the developing world will pick up the demand slack, but they often ignore the fact that disposable incomes in the developing world pale in comparison to those which were lost in the U.S. This means those markets do not serve as a suitable substitute, economically speaking. In time, those markets will collapse too, bringing economic pain to everyone...including business owners.
The real catch 22 is that the environment is being forsaken, forgotten and slighted by everyone practically involved in the discussion of economic stimulus and financial growth, even in discussion of fairness of earnings where 1% gets near 1$ of 4 and of wealth control 4 out of 10.. The real threat to recovery is that on present course Earth is dying.
Specifically and in short order to become overwhelmingly apparent and that it is irreversible.. Thing is if industry is focused on retooling and building what's needed for full employment to keep human needs met while protecting the Earth and ecosystems of Nature there would by such wealth generation as never seen in the past and Earth lives.
But people want to count their french fries and drive cars..
No heed for the gent on the bike or doing without to prove the point that some won't work for a system that destroys the world in which we live.. Man does not live by money alone, nor by bread or taking advantage of others but by hope and fair treatment, taking a hand in gov and trying to make it so common good is protected for future living things.
Ocean is acidifying and carbonate balance is disrupted.
The atmospheric concentration of heat trapping gas is rising faster than ever in the 4billion year history of Earth.
Systems are disrupted and revolution, popular revolution is trying to make itself heard.. Is anyone listening to the whole story of the rule by the elite who have so engaged to live.
To live by cavalier neglect of the very planet that sustains..
Private business creates jobs, but hoarding wealth to make the wealthy wealthier destroys jobs. Tax breaks do not create jobs, they just create corruption and greed.
Your fiscal theory is nothing but a fantasy. We've had the Bush tax cuts for close to a decade and, yet, job creation is the last thing they've produced.
Disagree. Simply cutting taxes is a very poor way to generate jobs. And, the talking point that government doesn't create jobs but creates waste is also too simplistic for me. Our focus should be more focused on initiatives and incentives focused directly on the growth of small to mid-sized businesses. You can't simply say 'here's more money, now go create jobs'. As for Government, clearly our government has often been wasteful and way too stymied by partisan politics and a massive bureaucracy. It needs to be sharply refocused. But, the government can still promote innovation and the next 'big things'. A longer-term focus and less influence of special interests would be movement in the right direction.
private sector jobs went up public sector jobs went down but those who remained in public sector got big raises... but most of these private sector jobs wont pay enough for future home ownership, its just numbers being used to shut people up for a while maybe just long enough till election lol
Nothing in the data released would support any of that.
Sadly, the idea of home ownership isn't quite compatible with a society that is addicted to credit. To really become home owners requires that those people save a significant portion of their income, not spending it all and them some with credit.
I don't think our government should just pay everyone's debt. That will just increase government dependency. Instead give everyone the opportunity to lift themselves up. I currently owe over $20,000 in a student loan. My husband alone gets $600 of taxes taken out of his income every month. That is ridiculous. If the government can take it's hands out of our pockets we can get out of debt ourselves. Plus put more money into the economy.
What's missing from the discussion is debt forgiveness.
For just 3% (!) of what we gave Wall Street we can eliminate the student loan debt that hobbles an entire generation, and does nothing but enrich the banks with unbreakable usury terms that would make Tony Soprano blush.
Actually I think it's a stupid answer on your part, nygy.
I had a couple of small student loans, several grants of various sizes that I earned because of my academic skills, and supplemented it all with this quaint thing called a "job". That's how I got through college and paid off the loans in about 4 years after the fact.
NOBODY forces a person to take a student loan. It's often the first adult decision somebody will make--so they need to *act* like adults and step up to their responsibility.
Jesus, Ferret, how idiotic can you get. "In each school year between 2000–2001 and 2006–2007, an estimated 60% of bachelor’s degree recipients borrowed to fund their education." You're saying that 60% of Americans should forego college because they can't guarantee that they can be responsible for the debt (since a college degree doesn't guarantee a job).
The bottom line is that lenders need to be responsible and not collude with schools and the government to bilk money from the people they are lending money to. The rules need to be fair, and the punishments need to stop being so excessive. Yeah, we can come up with plenty of valid reasons to throw millions of young Americans into debtor's prison because they've been so irresponsible, but that doesn't really make a better America, does it?
So because the banks (or any business) "corrupted the system" we should bail out all student loans therefore handing the banks a free ride? If you don't like how the banks handled themselves you should let them fail. It sounds harsh but that is how new business practices are formed and how we better ourselves as a society.
I agree. But the reality is we did not let the banks fail. We gave them free money. Instead we could have paid everyone's debt off for a fraction of the price. The banks essentially get a boost because of all the loans being paid back and everyone else gets a boost from having their student loan paid off. WIn-Win.
Absolutely. I've said this for a long time. In 2005 there were 48,394,000 mortgages in the United States. For the cost of the two bailouts we could have given each American mortgage holder $30,000 to spend on their mortgage.
For a small bit more we could have investigated and prosecuted all of the predatory lenders who created the terrible loans in the first place, and cleaned up the financial rating system that let it all happen in the first place.
I'm not saying giving each mortgage holder that kind of money would be fair, but it seems like a hell of a lot better solution than just giving money to the banks.
Loans are made by the US gov't at near zero percent interest and since student loans are backed by the gov't, they are absolutely risk-free. So,
1) there is no reason to have a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit,
2) we bailed them out -- so it's our money anyway,
3) there is no sense in holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs,
4) just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc.,
and
5) our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.
Profit and profiteering should never be the dominant purpose (or reason) of any transaction.
The benefit of the transaction should be.
The purpose and benefit to society of a student loan is to help students pay for school.
It is not to hold them hostage for the profit of the loan company. It is not to plunder the lion's share of a struggling students first forays into supporting themselves. Unfairly indenturing students hurts us all.
We should all work towards improving the ability of all people to have easier access to a better education. We should also work towards making it easier for people entering the workforce. The benefit to society is obvious, more people with an education, and more workers with a chance for success, mean a better society. No tax, and no profit motive should corrupt that pursuit. The investment and burden should fairly come from the established and the successful, shared through taxes and society, not shackling individuals who have less access to upward mobility.
The purpose and benefit of a business to society is to provide value to it and it's citizens and in exchange it is allowed to make money fairly.
It is not to allow them to profit to the point where they take the lion's share of workers right to fruit of their production. It is not to allow them to profit and succeed while the societies fail around them. It is not to give them freedom to do what they want, to conduct business as they choose. Business exists to serve society 1st; it's consumers, it's workers, it's executives, and it's founders should all fairly benefit in that success, in that order.
The purpose is not to concentrate that benefit as much as possible to the top.
A society exists for the benefit of all it's citizen's, not just it's successful. Living in a society means working together to share in the benefits of our collective efforts (as well as fairly benefiting from one's own), and not selfishly separating themselves from it. Society started with the very idea that two people can (find a way to) work together so that Both will benefit more than they can by themselves. You watch my back and I'll watch yours. Together we should work to multiply our efforts, not leech off of them. The purpose of society is to pursue an improvement of the Quality of Life, both individually and together.
The Successful should fairly and rightly bear the balance of the weight of society, because they have the capacity, the freedom, and the responsibility to do so. Society is what gives individuals the right to pursue success and financial freedom. This is part of the implied social contract; you have the right to succeed in society as long you participate in it; the more you do, the more you should. The degree of success should fairly convey a degree of responsibility. As any person (or business) can afford to take care of themselves and fairly participate in the success of the society, it should bear a proportionate share in the costs, burdens, and success/failure of it, as successful members of a society. Success does not mean freedom from having to participate in the failures of society, in fact it confers a greater responsibility to do so.
Everyone should have a proportionate break to the degree that they struggle to participate in sharing societies and their own individual burden. It is in the best interest of everyone in society to improve the situation of the have-nots and the less successful, so that they can participate in sharing that burden. So that Society is also healthy, and not just the healthy minority.
That certainly hits the Republican talking point. It would be nice to get past that type of thought and deal with real issues. Yes, we need to make people accountable. Yes, people should honor their commitments. At the same time, the real issue for me is an 'under-educated' population being outpaced by the Asian world. Tuition costs spiraling at a rate higher than inflation won't help.
Who was FORCED to take out a student loan? They made that CHOICE now these same people don't want to make good on their promise to pay the bank back for funding their education. f**k them. They made the decision to borrow money.
This is exactly what frustrates me as well. It's way too simplistic time and again to simply say 'you entered in to this agreement'. f**k you for not abiding by the terms. These Banks employ teams of lawyers and other experts to squeeze out every penny possible from loans. The student on the other hand often finds these loans to be their only source of funds. Thus, you pit profit motive and schemes set by very savvy business interests against the student. Surprise. Students lose and end up with a mountain of debt.
In the end, I want a more educated population. We've fallen behind many other countries in providing the needed skills. Do we really want to make it 'that much harder' for the next generation to compete?
I'd rather we invest in our students than Bain Capital, the banks, oil and gas companies, defense contractors, etc...but competing on a global scale with all the other countries pumping their citizens money into special interest groups, I guess it will probably never stop...but again, I'd rather invest in education than industry elites any day of the week.
Loans are made by the US gov't at near zero percent interest and since student loans are backed by the gov't, they are absolutely risk-free. So,
1) there is no reason to have a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit,
2) we bailed them out -- so it's our money anyway,
3) there is no sense in holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs,
4) just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc.,
and
5) our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.
I also paid off my student debt (all my income went to paying off the debt before buying cool and expensive toys), so no, we're asking if you're going to reimburse us for being responsible. Some other jackass went off and bought a corvette right out of school but still has student loans gets a free ride from the government? I also picked a major where I knew I could get a job. Where I know there were 10 other people who got degrees in business or underwater basket-weaving and were surprised when they were managing at Staples or were unemployed.
Those who make smart decisions should be rewarded, not those who make dumb decisions. So either you need to come up with a better system, or forgiving loans is the worse possible thing you could do.
I'm a engineer. All my engineer friends from college and myself have jobs. You need to look at moving if you can't find work.
And Obama stated quite clearly in a interview recently that engineers are actually doing quite well in the employment market (one thing I actually agree with him on). Do you think Obama is full of s**t?
Engineers were *devastated* by the tech bubble popping. But by 2005 the job market recovered and has stayed relatively strong compared to other job markets.
As for your last two paragraphs... I stated quite clearly f**k face that responsibility should be rewarded. I couldn't give a s**t about the banks, they can fail if they made poor decisions. If someone took out a ton of loans for under water basket weaving then they can have fun paying that off, as that was their choice. The loan is the cheapest interest rate in the country, and you had a choice in order to take it out or not. If you should be pissed at anyone, be pissed at higher education institutions that charge a arm in a leg for services that are constantly getting worse by the year.
If someone is in a actual good major like engineering, they better look at getting off their ass and leaving their college town to look for work. Because there are plenty of opportunities out there.
OK engineer, tell us how much it costs to buy the services of a EE with a master's degree from Bangalore, India and - since you must be good at math - how can one financially justify the cost of obtaining a master's degree in electrical engineering in order to compete with someone who lives well on $6 an hour?
We're talking about jobs here in the U.S. As for Visa engineers working here in the U.S. those are limited in number and only make up a small fraction of the engineering jobs here in the U.S.
"since you must be good at math"
Do you have any intelligence at all? How the f**k are you a engineer? No wonder you can't find a job. Your sarcastic jab has *absolutely* nothing with what you are discussing. You're a bitter pathetic little man and your political persuasions do not surprise me.
Engineers are still relevant in the U.S. because of the quality of our work. If you are competing on the cutting edge of technology (weapon systems, processors, electrical grids, high speed networking) you need people not only educated in the U.S. but who also live locally.
Ultimis, I agree with this line of thought. People do need to be responsible and pay what they owe. But, at the same time, we do have to address the system itself. At a time when we need a more educated populace, it just doesn't work to have spiraling education costs and no good way to fund those costs.
I've personally being saying for years that the educational bubble will be the next big pop in the U.S. Costs are going to get to the point that no student will be able to afford it, and then Universities will start to implode.
I have no solutions for educational costs. I hear its bureaucracy and overhead, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. I do know that when I was in school my tuition costs nearly doubled yet the facilities I used were still 10 years+ out of date. So I have no clue where all that tuition money was going.
I'm in the process of paying off my loans, and I have no qualms about it. I asked for their help, I agreed to the terms, and I intend to follow through on the contract.
Making an agreement and then bailing on it because it is an inconvenience is NOT the proper way to do things. And those who suggest it should be the way are disgusting free loaders.
Ive already paid paid more than three times what I've borrowed and have more than four times left to go. There's absolutely no justification for that when the money originates at the US treasury at near zero percent interest -- and since student loans are backed by the gov't, they are absolutely risk-free. Please give one reason why there is a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit.
Paying 4, 5 or 6 times the amount borrowed is NOT an inconvenience. It is ROBBERY.
I also disagree with holding the victims of the banks' illegal deeds responsible for a sabotaged economy to the benefit of the saboteurs.
Lastly, just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc. because our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class, and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Uh, the interest rate for student loans is the lowest in the country (3-5%). Certain loans you don't even pay interest on until you graduate and find a job (or a certain period after graduation). So I seriously f**king doubt you paid 4, 5, or 6 times the borrowed amount. You would have to be paying on those loans for 60+ years to achieve something to miraculous. And that's assuming you weren't actually paying anything for the first 50 years.
The same applies for credit cards as for loans, you pay more than the minimum payment *always*. You find your highest debt (at the time I got out of college my car died so I had new car payments and credit card bills, those were paid off first at the maximum amount I could pay). Once other debt was in order I pay more than a thousand per month toward my student loans.
It also helped that I worked nearly fully time throughout college.
That wasn't the point. The point is that rates on many student loans are exorbitant, and unnecessary.
When a con artist gets caught,one does not make the people still making him payments finish paying him, nor does one say "well, I paid him, so you should too". That's not how life works. One person getting hosed (whether or not they turn out happy with the consequences, or whether or not they were ok with getting screwed) does not mean getting hosed is smart, or right, or that EVERYONE should be happy with it.
And while I appear to be getting painted with a broad brush here, keep in mind that I don't have any student loan debt either. That's not the point.
"rate on many student loans are exorbitant"? Oh really? My student loan was less than 3%. There is a reason you are forced to pay student loans even if you go bankrupt.
Those were loans, and by and large have been repaid.
The student loan debt is ~ $1 trillion. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but no one "gave" the banks $1 quadrillion in taxpayer funds.
Finally, what moral imperative is driving this forgiveness, and is there any cookie given to those millions of folks who had the misfortune of being responsible and paying back their student loans?
Don't worry about the math. I'm an engineer, so I have a bad habit of taking it as a given...
"The money was paid back" is a half-truth: the US gov't gave them money at 0% interest which the banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% and -- voila! -- huge bonuses for all of the genius bankers who managed to make a profit on free taxpayer money.
While we here at the bottom argue about nickel and dime budget cuts and the like, the bastards on top (whose greed and illegal activities crashed the system) have robbed us blind.
PS Wanna hear something really scary? It's estimated that the total amount of outstanding financial derivatives is around $500 trillion.
What makes you think THEY are going to pay for it? WE the people will pay for it just like we pay for every bailout. Unlike the bankers, we don't have lobbyists crawling all over the capital.
You're right - totally agree! We already have paid for it. Why didn't we demand they make concessions to debtors (housing, students and otherwise)? Why not benefit from it?
"i paid my student loans back, are you going to reimburse me for them?"
I've paid off more than three times what I've borrowed and still have FOUR TIMES what I borrowed to go. Since the loans originated at the US treasury at near zero percent interest AND student loans are backed by the gov't (meaning they are ABSOLUTELY RISK-FREE) therefore there is no justification whatsoever to have a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit.
Additionally, we bailed them out so it's our money anyway -- in other words, We the People have already paid off the loans.
Furthermore, there is no sense in holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs. Only a true sociopath would conclude otherwise.
Finally, just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc. because our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class, and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.
What's so special about young university graduates that they deserve to be handed free money? If we're handing out free money, there are a lot of people who deserve it more than people who are young, healthy, energetic and have a lifetime of income ahead of them.
And usury terms? As far as I know, student loans have some of the lowest interest rates.
Look up student loan rates. You can get pretty much any kind of unsecured personal loan for less than the rates that are being offered on student loans.
And the term usury is appropriate. Miss a few payments on your student loans, and you can pretty quickly find yourself paying 20+%.
Then you're doing it wrong. My student loans are by far the lowest interest rate on credit I've had. I worked harder to pay off my credit card debt becuase the rates were rediculous. I knew I could get by on minimums in the meantime with my student loans because the rates were so low.
Mine were too, Ridge. Lowest loan rates I ever had.
Don't know where Tree and Nyx found their rates, but apparently they took the first thing that came along and have made nothing but minimum payments since.
So when a roulette wheel in a casino is rigged, you'd still hold the players responsible?
Holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs. Only a true sociopath would conclude otherwise.
So I'm 22, fresh out of college, working hard and finally making it. But oops! I missed a payment! Suddenly my $149 a month student loan that I could manage turns into a $350/month student loan of 2.5 times what I had originally borrowed.
You think THAT is how student loans should work?
Every young person should be able to sign up for these loans knowing that there is NO chance that usury from these loans is going to destroy their entire life.
Just like a credit card. Did you try contacting the loan servicer to see if they'd drop it if you set things up on autopay?
Otherwise, yeah that's how it should work, if that's the terms of the agreement as a penalty if you are late or skip payments. You did willingly sign that agreement.
It shouldn't be left up to the whim of the loan servicer to decide if they are going to drop it or not. There is plenty of evidence that these servicers are willing to go to great lengths to extract as much money as possible out of people.
There is a fair assumption by every young person and their parents that because these loans are controlled by the government that the terms will be fair and reasonable. As for understanding the terms and guarding yourself against usury, that is not the job of some 18 year old kid, that's the job of government - to protect people from thugs disguised as bankers.
It's not up to whim, it's up to the contract which you as a responsible adult understood and signed.
If you have the chutzpah, you can occasionally get the tele-service folks to bend a few rules and knock the percentage rate down. But YMMV. I've found the indian call center guys the most strict. Might help if you have an indian friend who can plead your case - no joke, had a co-worker do that and got more done than she could on her own. I don't want to speculate on the cause, but it did seem the guy on the other line was much more sympathetic to the same story when it was told in hindi.
I'm not unsympathetic to your situation. I had the same thing happen to me about 2 years out of school. But it really isn't the bank's fault they're following the language in the contract. It's not the job of the government to keep you out of trouble, it's your responsibility. And now it's your responsibility to tackle the issue and either accept the payments or try every angle to get them reduced. That's what a contract is, what rule of law is in this society. You live by your word, or accept the consequences.
I paid off my student loan last amongst my debt as it was by far the lowest interest rate. I even sat on it for a year at around 1 buck to add to my credit.
Same here (student loan being the last one paid off).
The biggest problem from what I saw with my peers was folks not fully grasping the amount of debt they'd have. I have a buddy who used loans to cover his BS at Berkeley (reasonably cheap public school) plus 3 years private med school (til he started to burnt out), then 3 years of private law school. We're both in our forties now, but he's still paying his loans back and has been in the same apartment we shared when we were in law school together.
It's human nature to delude yourself when you're ~20 that you're going to make millions, so a few tens of thousands in debt isn't meaningful. When you get into your thirties and realize you're not as bright as you thought and your career not as meteoric, and you could really have used the $600 or so you're paying on your student loans this month for something else, well...
Doesn't mean anyone should get a free ride, but I can see how some who didn't plan well on their educational path would really *really* like that burden gone.
A lot can change in 4 years.
Additionally, not all industries with high demand have a similarly high demand for training recent graduates.
Furthermore, please consider the hypocrisy of society telling young people they can be anything they want and then criticizing them for not having the foresight to know they were pursuing a dying industry.
Well, I'm not going to hold anyone's hand because they were told they can be an astronaut and now are unemployable. These people are adults, they need to grow up and act like it.
Anyone who majors in Art History or Music - my hat's off to them, assuming they purposefully decided that pursuing their interest meant more to them than making large salaries. There are such folks out there, and there is a great deal of integrity with such a conscious choice on what will make you happy in your life. But don't graduate with a MA in Music and then whine how unfair that other folks are RICH!!11!!! and you're still working in a niche record shop.
You can definitely spot dying/growth industries though, and those patterns last beyond 4 years. Even where there isn't great demand for newly minted graduates, there are usually paths into those careers if you're willing to be humble and work your way through any opportunity to get what you want.
ya noone told me when i got my PHD in artistic ritual tree dancing that my 8 years of post-grad work would not be paid for....
it was as great a shock to me when all of a sudden there is no work for a master level tree dancer such as myself....
if only Bush would not have spent all of our money on war and his oil buddies i could have a great job and maybe be a 1% like the people i am so envious of...
but now i am 33 and my parents will not pay for me or my loans anymore....
Sorry, dude, but you're not getting out from under your loans.
I paid mine off and future generations are going to have to pay theirs off; you don't get to benefit from a one time pass of being lucky enough to have outstanding student loans.
As if students need even more incentive not to find a real job.
And thanks for making the whole of GenX look like the pathetic, whinny losers we know they are.
BTW - Wall Street paid it's loans BACK.
/just young enough to miss out on being a gen x loser.
Thanks for reminding us that the banks did in fact repay the government. It's easy to forget that simple fact amidst all the hysteria. BofA got $45 billion and they paid it back. Wells Fargo got $25 billion and they paid it back. Goldman Sachs got $10 billion and they paid it back. Etc. What's the problem? Everybody should have to pay back their debts. It's part of the social contract. Forgiving student loans is a terrible idea.
@mbraynard, eternalsnows, Yes, while tarp loans were paid back, at least they say they were(GM and Chrysler said there's were too, but didn't we still loose money, why yes we did).
What about the 13 Trillion, yes that's with a T, the FED loaned banks around the world, have those been paid back? Why lets file a FOIA request and 20 years from now we might just find out. Oh what, we have to sue them to find out? Just great!
Most on wall street were forced to take the loans, they didn't need the money anyway, guess what, they got free use of billions of dollars to make EVEN money off of, weeeeeeee.
And we can't even get a Thank You from the bastards. Oh, i forgot, their "doing God's work". *Quote from: Lloyd Blankfein
I am not for, forgiving student loans or loans of any type, but they could frickin help in some way.
I've paid off mine more than three times now...and I've got four times left to go.
I've yet to hear a single reason why a middle man is necessary or a single reason to justify terms and conditions that are illegal everywhere else. After all, the money originates from the US treasury at 0% interest and, since it's backed by the US gov't, is risk-free.
BTW - "the money was paid back" is a half-truth: the US gov't gave them money at essentially 0% interest.
The banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% and pocketed the difference.
So there's that...but let's not let the facts cloud the issue.
"The banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% and pocketed the difference." This is entirely, completely, irrefutably incorrect. It's certainly possible to disagree in principle with TARP, et al., but basing your "argument" on blatant falsehoods is the height of irresponsibility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes, that's all well and good, but what about the $7 trillion secret loan program run by the fed under Bush? Are you *sure* the banks have paid back all of MY money?
Second, it's not really your money anymore than the money in my pocket is also your money. The Fed is suppose to be independent and you shouldn't confuse its funds with, say, the federal government's fiscal spending on butter and bombs.
Third, it wasn't a loan, it was an investment in commercial paper in order to get more currency in circulation. And, insofar as none of those banks have gone under and they all continue to make their interest payments (which DOES give you money since the Fed's profits go to the US treasury), yeah, they have paid it back in accordance with the terms of the paper.
To those unfamiliar with finance and monetary policy, I can see how a partial explanation in failing online magazines like Slate can confound you.
Thanks for the clarifications in your post. I wasn't expecting a defense of this use of fed money. I'm interested in your claim that this huge amount of money has been "paid back"
Spitzer's article linked to the original story from Bloomberg, which is here:
I remember reading your article when it came out, but I think the article answers all the questions you seem to be getting at. Namely:
1) There was a credit freeze around the world and the Fed unfreezed it.
2) The loans the fed made were collateralized appropriately. IE - if the bank went under, the Fed would be among the first if not _the_ first to get paid.
3) Collateralized. A bank can be flush on it's balance sheet but if it's assets are illiquid, it can't make loans or cover the credit it extends to employers, etc. So the Fed made loans based on the collateral to provide liquidity.
4) Stigma. That's an interesting discussion and I'm not sure what to think about it. By keeping it private, it makes it easier for banks who are in trouble to get the money they need from the fed so they can rebound. We already had one instance in the last crash where a bank was destroyed because a senator bad mouthed them. This created a run and then the FDIC had to pay off the account holders.
The trouble with debt forgiveness is that the education inflation ball keeps rolling. People have to wake up and find alternatives to the high school costs we currently have. It's like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving guaranteed housing loans. It just causes inflation and in the end, hurts everyone. We've got to stop guaranteeing these loans. If loans are hard to get, alternatives will be found.
Excellent point. It's time for this bubble to burst.
One thing that is keeping the bubble going, and will keep the crash from being too bad, is all these foreigners who keep coming here to go to school and paying full price - even though the Federal Government makes it harder for them to come here for an education.
Further, this may also be a way out of the real estate problem since the Feds are giving out green cards to people who buy land here. Hurray for immigration!
First, what we gave Wall Street (TARP) was paid back. I doubt that these students we give this money to would pay it back.
Second, student loans are approaching $1 trillion dollars. No matter the estimate, TARP cost somewhere around $450 billion (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12118). So we're talking about a bailout twice the size of TARP. Can you please show me where you get 3%?
Last, what would you do to someone who, say, got an inheritance and paid of their student loans a few months ago? Why should they suffer but you not? Are you going to be okay with the banks suddenly losing capitalization because now those loans are forgiven? Or is the US going to just write checks to the banks and pay them off. Is that no a gift to the banks (sudden influx of cash!)
Okay, PS: No one forced anyone to take student loans. If you did not stop and think that maybe trying to borrow your way through four years of life might not be a good idea, why should anyone bail you out? People constantly quote the cost of a college education - tuition, room and board. Only problem is that only one of those costs is really incidental - you've still got to eat and sleep even if you worked. Maybe it wouldn't have been your cost (maybe you stay with your parents) but the net result is you still borrowed to meet basic life necessities. Bad, bad idea. Maybe they'll teach their kids to be allergic to debt.
"The money was paid back" is a half-truth: the US gov't gave them money at 0% interest.
The banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% then pocketed the difference. So there's that...but let's not let the facts cloud the issue.
Who is talking about TARP? TARP is 1/60th the total amount loaned to the banks -- almost $30 trillion dollars. (Really? You couldn't do the math? "Three percent of x equals one trillion. Find x." That was too difficult to do?)
The only people "forced" to take out student loans are those who are smart and motivated enough to attend college but lack money. Next.
"The only people "forced" to take out student loans are those who are smart and motivated enough to attend college but lack money"
Funny, I was smart enough to get into college but my parents could afford it. I worked and put myself through college. Instead I guess we should just encourage people to borrow their way through school?
"Who is talking about TARP? TARP is 1/60th the total amount loaned to the banks -- almost $30 trillion dollars. (Really? You couldn't do the math? "Three percent of x equals one trillion. Find x." That was too difficult to do?)"
I worked through college and I took out student loans. the thing is, though, that I graduated before you had to fear that your entire financial future was at risk from the bank that managed my loan. My rate was generous compared to current rates, and most of all, if I missed a payment, was late or became unemployed and needed a deferment, my rate wasn't going to change, and I wasn't going to be charged penalties that could potentially double or triple the amount I had initially borrowed.
On the flip side, my student loan interest wasn't tax deductible. Of course, the cynic in me says that's only in place now because banks who make profit off that interest want it that way.
I graduated not that long ago, and my interest rates were cheaper than any other debt I had. I paid my student loans off last.
I'm currently buying a home and interest rates across the country are at their lowest point in decades (Average 3%); so I have a hard time believing some students have ludicrously high interest rates (unless they're using credit cards for "student loans"). Usually you sign up for student loans through the school (that has a real bank behind it) that make certain your rates are cheap. On certain student loans they don't even start charging you interest until you graduate and have a job.
The only negative aspect of student loans is you are unable to default on them or clear them using a bankruptcy. But that is the main reason student loans have the cheapest interest rate compared to other debt.
A truly realistic evaluation of ground realities by a popular columnist and economic expert.All concerned must heed to his timely and well-worded advice to keep the economy from falling in to doldrum once more.His closing lines sum it so well:
"So here’s what needs to be said about the latest numbers: yes, we’re doing a bit better, but no, things are not O.K. — not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy, and policy makers should be doing much more than they are to make it better".
Agreed with everything you wrote except that we're still IN the doldrums.
The small bit of optimism that Dr. Krugman writes of is the creation of jobs -- mostly s**tty, low-paying, no-benefits, no long-term commitment jobs. One can't base a recovery on that; one can't undo the damage of a lost decade on that; one can't bring a forgotten generation X (now spilling over to Y) back up to speed on that; one sure as hell can't buy a car much less a house (as he mentions) or consider raising a family on that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Exactly. You can't raise a family on that, yet we think an entire generation is supposed to be happy with it just to make greedy destructive corporations happy.
Any column that starts with a lamentation about the need for a "a world with a better policy elite" isn't a realistic evaluation and proves Krugmann's not much of an economics expert.
If it's one thing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China proved it's that a "policy elite" with too much control is what you want if widespread poverty is your goal. The Soviet Union clung to its "policy elite" as their economy nose-dived into oblivion and the Chinese came to the realization that an economic policy elite is a good way to make sure there's little to no economic growth so freed, as much as their ruling authoritarians could stand, the economy.
Face it, Krugmann's serving intellectual dessert to the likes of you, for a right, nice return on his time, and the likes of you is less and less relevant to governance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"the Chinese came to the realization that an economic policy elite is a good way to make sure there's little to no economic growth"
Wow. How incorrect can you possibly be? The Chinese economy is managed and steered by a "Policy Elite". The entire growth and development of the economy is driven by deliberate policy mixed with market reform and just enough freedom and capitalism mixed into a centrally planned economy to maximize economic growth while minimizing true economic and political freedom.
In point of fact, the Chinese have studied the history and growth of western consumer societies and markets and are furiously replicating the best of what they found - including things like Interstate highways, telecommunications and the development and growth of a consumerist "middle class". These things are not developing organically or by chance, but are part and parcel with the Economic Development policies of the Chinese Government.
Yes, they are trying to spread the wealth around because -- as has been demonstrated every single place and time in all of history -- **any** society with unfair, systemic distance between the haves and the have-nots is unstable as a three-legged table.
Absolutely.
A small group of people doing well never trumps the majority of people doing well.
The heart of the problem is that the haves will always have the incentive to take care of their own 1st, and by intent, effort, or quiet abstinence they will continue to increasingly exclude the have-nots.
Over time exclusionary behavior, intentional or not, causes the majority of the people to slip into the category of have-nots, and thus miss out on the benefits of sharing in the success of the society that they are part of.
When any group is left out of the progress and benefit of the success of society (to any degree), it will wither away.
When any society excludes the majority of its people from benefiting from it, it will eventually fail.
Krugman's answer to everything is spend more money we don't have. If he's a genius economist then that has to be the easiest job in the world. Imagine if that were an acceptable answer in your job?
Just spend more money! Hey, raise everyone's salary. Hey, just double the size of the operation!
The man is a cartoon. Every answer is spend more money we don't have. He never has a solution that involves not spending more money. Shouldn't an accomplished economist find ways to stimulate or manage an economy that doesn't involve flooding it with debt money? Because I'm pretty sure a four year old could come up with most of his brilliant plans.
This is all beyond absurd... and the NY Times heightens all that by publishing this bozo.
I found it interesting that he's making a great case that the economy is not OK. Of course that's correct, and surprisingly doesn't jibe with everything Democrats and Obama are telling us now.
Of course his solution seems to be QE4,5,6 whatever we are on now, which is his usual answer to the economy, and hasn't worked.
again, imagine if that were an acceptable answer in your business or job.
Ad agency having a hard time? Take out some huge loans and spend more money. Okay, so you're spending nearly twice what you're taking in revenue but clearly you just need to spend more money.
Car dealership not making enough sales? Spend more money. Lets just buy the cars full price from the auto company and then sell them to the consumer at half price. That will get our sales up!
His ideas are just so completely stupid. It's so dumb that it's complicated to explain exactly how stupid it is...
Look at the New York Times itself... they're having a hard time selling papers. Well... What would Krugman recommend? Take out some huge loans, raise the price of papers (like taxes), spend most of the debt money on advertising or "messaging"... and wait for the money to roll in by draining your credit.
Wrong. He advocates taking money back out of the system during times of robust economic growth. His message is consistent. In contrast, you sound just like a half-wit republican running for office. "Spend money we don't have?" What the f**k does that mean? You have no idea how our monetary system works ( or, at least is designed to work ) We don't have ANY money. We only use IOUs, the value of which is determined primarily by how many of them are in circulation.
If you want to argue that we should be on a gold standard and do away with fractional reserve banking, your argument would at least have some merit. Instead you just shriek "WE CAN'T SPEND MONEY WE DON'T HAVE". It is nothing like your home finances. Nothing. Go educate yourself, even a little bit, then comment on the situation. A good way to start would be by reading Krugman, if you could follow it.
Greed is the ultimate result of our society. The focus on Individual Competition and the pursuit of money has become so out of balance with Societal Cooperation, and the pursuit of Quality of Life together, that it may tear itself apart. Money should be the grease that moves the wheels of society and not the point of it. When the pursuit of money becomes more important than the pursuit of any other concept of value, everything else starts to suffer.
The evidence is all around us. Most things are no longer healthy. We no longer pursue quality for the sake of quality, caring for others for the sake of others, or making a better world for the sake of everyone.
We are quickly becoming a nation of vampires and vultures, scrabbling to survive, to get all the money/lifeblood they can, draining society dry of its value.
Businesses should exist to provide and improve upon value to society, not to blindly produce money. Making a fair benefit from the fruit of labors should be a result of improving that value, not the reason for it. It is the quality of that health overall, not the quantity of the most obvious component like profit or money that should be the focus.
Only caring about the blood (money) instead of the body (workers, assets, functioning, and reason for being) will lead to death. Just like the health of a society depends on the health of the majority of it's citizens. The health of a business should depend on the health and fairness of the majority of it's workers (representing the majority of members in society), and the value it gives to society. Ex ) a bread company should first exist to provide the best bread possible to its society, to fairly employ and compensate its workers, to play and compete fairly with other businesses, and to be a healthy contributor to society, to do the best job it can. Profit has to be regulated, not so that the fruit of labors is restricted, but but so that society, and the workers who comprise the majority of it, the companies long term health, and the executives/founders get an appropriate share of the benefit of the fruit of those labors. Society allows a business to operate, not so it can be free to make money or serve it founders/executives but to produce value to society.
Politicians should only exist to represent the people, as members of society (collectively and as individuals in balance).
Their only job and responsibility should be to focus on making the best, correct decisions to improve the quality of life for society and its individual citizens. (not creating the false appearance of popularity and progress). To guarantee focus, Politicians should have to pass both an ethics test, and a standards for good decision making test before they could be nominated.
Salaries should probably be tied to the success of the society, tied to the average pay of the majority of Americans and the poverty level, so politicians have an incentive to improve them.
To have a healthy society and for clear decisions to be made, all corrupting political influences must be eliminated.
Lobbyism must be ended, so that only people are the focus.
All groups with an incentive to influence; those with money, success, or power as well, must be restricted from their freedom to unfairly influence any government decision. No company, political party, wealthy, crony, or powerful person or group should be allowed Any influence beyond the best interests of the citizens of our society.
Corruption has to be limited and monitored for it to end.
The Wealthy and the Successful are only allowed to exist and pursue that success, by Society, for the benefit of Society and All of its members. They only have the earned privilege, not the right to be successful and free, as the needs of society allow. Success should never buy Freedom from responsibility to Society, in fact, as those who have more of a capacity to do so, they should have a even greater responsibility to bear that cost. Everyone is responsible for being a contributing member of society. However, The successful actually have more responsibility to protect and bear the weight of it.
Help should obviously come from those who have it, not those who need it.
Because the majority of society's wealth and success concentrated in the the hands of the successful, only the successful are capable, empowered, and free enough to solve the problems of society. Instead of being left free, to take care of their own, to create their own separate society, and thus ignore our problems, because they can handle it, they should be exposed to those problems first. For our Society to ever be fixed, we must hold the Successful accountable, and re-balance inequity, so that Society can survive and the American Dream restored.
- As a group, the Upper Class can be defined as reaching a level that offers enough freedom, financially and labor-wise, that they are no longer distracted or affected by the requirements of survival, and having to work for it. They can afford to work independently from society, and they are free to pursue the fruit of the labors. Their success should not be restricted, they should never be capped or kept from the fair pursuit of their labors; However.
1. They should never be allowed that pursuit so freely that it is to the disadvantage of others who can not move so freely. They cannot be allowed to live with a different set of rules.
2. Since they are more free to absorb the effects of society, they should be the most held accountable to the effects of Society. Proportionately to their ability and their success.... their taxes, their responsibility, and the fate should be tied to the fate of the Society. They should have to feel a bad economy 1st, instead of shifting it outside of their class. And they should be they 1st ones to make sacrifices. If they are held accountable then they will have the incentive, not just the capacity to be responsible to Society.
Rules must be changed to keep the Upper Class from only taking care of their own.
Their success must be tied to the success of the Middle Class and the fate of the Poor.
If this Tyranny continues to polarize society will suffer.
They must be held Accountable.
The Middle Class and the access to the American Dream is dead or quickly dying for most people. 1 of 2 people in America is now below the poverty level. Wages for the majority of Americans are stagnant since the 1980's and are now looking for the first time in history to become negative.
The Poor are little more than indentured servants and slaves with no real chance of upward mobility. We stopped caring.
Only Companies and the Upper Class are doing well.
The fact is, the only way to fix this is to radically bail out the average person, who is failing through no fault of their own, and is the most productive worker in the world.
Even fixing the rules to be fair, will not reverse the trend quickly enough.
Individuals and Society are only healthy in balance.
We need to focus on cooperation again, before we compete ourselves to death, and the only winner is Greed, and who is standing on top of that hill.
Don't doubt that the Upper Class acts like it is another separate country.
Don't doubt that companies will sell out American value and follow the money to the highest bidder if we continue to give them too much freedom.
Don't doubt that Greed and Selfishness got us into that position.
Don't doubt that the distraction of politics keeps us divided from fixing things instead of cooperating to our success.
We have to face reality.
We have to learn how to talk and accomplish things, with each other, again.
The only real advantage of that is suddenly all the "expenses" that were hidden from employees will be in stark view - how much the employer pays into Social Security/Medicare, the real cost of health insurance (unsubsidized by the employer), etc.
When Krugman said we didn't spend even close to what we should have in the bailout, I pretty much bury any article by him immediately that appears on digg.
He is submitted methodically by one person, Phil Perspective, who knows that his submission will be instantly promoted to the front page.
Why anyone pays any attention to Krugman is difficult to understand.
Earth is in danger right now.. Today..
Rebut this if you can because this is what is coming to economies everywhere. http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/gary-housers-rebuttal-realclimates.html
Also after going down column and reading the article consider bookmarking this sight in order to refute denial of global warming and the whole host of false arguments out there.
There is definitely more room for improvement and the economy isn't much better. And the national debt is just making matters. I wonder at what point will our leadership in Washington decide that the US has accumulated too much debt.?
No problem...though I don't consider one link "spam" Would understand if I tried putting 100 comments with a link in there. Then it would be spam.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
One link is not, but you have posted a link in 20 of your 32 comments. That is spam, and if you keep it up digg will eventually get around to banning you.
At least this time you were more cordial about it and gave me a valid reason, I will certainly heed your advice. Seeing how I really just started using Digg, though I have been a member for a few months, I was unaware that including a link at the end of a comment was consider ed poor etiquette .
Read up on spam. It's the bane of the internet and it's become really bad on digg lately. They're like telemarketers used to be. Sometimes when I'm bored I like to hurl verbal abuse at them. If it was an honest mistake, I apologize for whatever terrible things I may have said to you.
nygenxerFeb 6, 2012
"...our economy remains deeply depressed...fewer workers employed than in January 2001 — zero growth after 11 years...even at January’s pace of job creation it would take us until 2019 to return to full employment."
Translation: ANOTHER LOST DECADE.
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
This is why it is called the Great Recession. It is not over yet.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
not as long as we follow 0bama...
dont worry though your side has won mik
we will be following you to the "progressive" paradise that has been promised to all.
4 more 0's, 4 more 0's, 4 more 0's, 4 more 0's!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
If ONLY Obama was a progressive...because he's NOT, he's a Goddamn centrist.
See, many of us on the left are a bit miffed at the man and, as evidenced by his very public scolding of progressive liberals, the feeling's mutual.
I know this ruins your whole world view, but I don't really give a f**k about your small mind and big mouth that ENDLESSLY spews this nonsense.
I'm tired of hearing the demonstrably false "facts" of idiots like yourself who are either too lazy and/or partisan to fact check their bulls**t talking points.
shivabeachFeb 7, 2012
Stop whining and man up.Progressives cant get all they want, and the ones who whine because they cant are not helping the country, the president or the rest of us. Liberals don't get all they want. But I will support Obama over the alternative and try to get what we want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
My comment specifically called out the mislabeling of Obama as a progressive, and since you neither asserted the contrary of my opinion nor showed support for that of bluto36, I'm left to wonder what the point of your comment was -- other than the ad hominem, obviously.
And actually, progressives CAN have everything they want. Perhaps you have never heard of the second bill of rights?
The right to a job;
The right to earn enough to pay for food and clothing;
The right of businessmen to be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies;
The right to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
(Sounds awful, doesn't it? BTW, in countries where they follow progressive policy, life is pretty f**king sweet.)
The more you know...the less likely you are to vote Republican.
planet87Feb 7, 2012
nygen. It is awful... because all of those so-called "rights" require a totalitarian state.
Your not progressive. You're a flat out and out Marxist.
fertilebastardFeb 7, 2012
"in countries where they follow progressive policy, life is pretty f**king sweet."
Oh... you mean like Greece??
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
Centrist? Got you brainwashed or what, no centrist thinks he centrist.
stabsteerFeb 7, 2012
YES! Could not agree more!
I have many Canadian and European friends who think Obama is conservative and the right wing in America is off the wall nuts. I agree with them.
Meanwhile the freaking morons conservatives here call him a socialist. America is full of f**king ignorant redneck idiots!
Jesus Christ there are so many of you f**king teatard morons! Go to school, get out of your Texas suburb, and f**king learn it's a big world out there and you ain't the center of it.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 7, 2012
Your side? Are there only two?
jeffdabeatFeb 7, 2012
Some of the crap we are in is due to perception. If people believe things are getting better then maybe they will be more likely to buy. Maybe small or midsize business will be a bit more willing to hire because people are buying just a bit more. The numbers may not be there just yet, but if people believe things are getting better (which they are), then maybe we won't be afraid to take a step forward.
ben7337Feb 7, 2012
Well that is most of what controls the economy, positive attitudes which affect buying as well as production and to some extent wages. As long as foreign countries are confident in our currency and production, our only problem is our own opinions of our economy.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Krugman refers to this as "the confidence fairy." See his earlier columns for more information. :)
chelseaelizobethFeb 7, 2012
I don't know why you're getting dugg down - you're absolutely right. Small changes affect small businesses first, and things trickle up.
skyislandFeb 8, 2012
CO2 concentrations in Atmosphere have swamped the ocean's ability to maintain pH of 8.23. Carbonate balance between runoff from land and deposition by Sea is knocked for a loop by over 2ppm addition of CO2 per year and rising.. Feedback of methane release from Arctic areas in particular are looking like they may be starting to take off. Global Warming Potential of Methane is higher than thought and quantities are huge in frozen condition and in land based permafrost going unstable with melt.. So there is no lost decade as systems collapse, economic theory is kept separate from scientific findings which have potential to reverse the course toward extinction. Double booked. Earth of economists and money vs That of properties of greenhouse gasses released to the sky.. But Nature and thermodynamics forces its books to account. To account for our wonton release of greenhouse gasses to the sky. No lie.
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/gary-housers-rebuttal-realclimates.html
readmikenowFeb 6, 2012
The unemployment numbers aren't real. They don't count people who have stopped looking for work etc. If you take an honest look at the numbers they don't add up. Things are bad and they're not going to change for awhile. As for forgiving student debt I believe something needs to change. Starting your working life with a huge debt to pay is awful. I say mabye someone needs to look at the huge amounts of money those in the world of higher education make.
dauntless1Feb 6, 2012
I agree that we need to look at the fact that the highest paid people in "higher education" are people who add nothing to education whatsoever.
Which would be the coaches and athletic administration.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
The revenue sports (football and basketball, primarily) are just that: they bring revenue to the university. Do you know why they have a big-ass stadium and coaches paid millions of dollars? It's not because the university loves sports. It's because the university loves money. They bring in far more money than they cost. Not just in ticket sales, but in promoting the university and encouraging donations.
Don't like tuition rates? You definitely wouldn't like them if sports were eliminated.
partrowFeb 6, 2012
We need to remove sports entertainment from academic schools and create sports schools for them to train and play for.
Academic schools need to provide only academics without the distraction of sports for everyone concerned.
JczeroFeb 6, 2012
Sports don't distract from academics, sports provide funding for academics. In the bigger schools the athletic programs raise millions of dollars that go back to the academic portion of the school. Also sports keep alumni involved with the school. If there wasn't sports people would eventually loose touch with the school they went to. By providing athletics it keeps the alumni involved with the school. Also, if you don't think alumni can provied a lot, I think my school got about $30 million in funding this year from alumni.
dauntless1Feb 7, 2012
" sports provide funding for academics."
Not in every school. In fact, in the case of several smaller 2 year colleges, sports adds NOTHING to the budget, it's simply a recruitment tool, to recruit tools.
bobcat7407Feb 6, 2012
You don't think that sports add anything to an education? Are you kidding?
ridgerunner5Feb 6, 2012
I'm interested to hear what you think they bring to the table...
bobcat7407Feb 6, 2012
Sure. One of the biggest things I think we learn from sports, IMO, is teamwork. There's also leadership, selflessness, humility, competitiveness, physical fitness, etc...
Here's a couple of more things:
"The great value of sport is that it teaches us to recognize the difference between winning and striving for excellence, the better but much harder achievement. More important, sports teaches us how to handle failure, to get up and try again when we lose. That's the most valuable lesson, since we lose more than we win in life."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/29/opinion/schieffer/main658082.shtml
"We believe that sports are important because of the values that can be learned,
including good sportsmanship, believing in others and learning that others can help us
achieve more by being united than by acting on our own self-interest."
http://administration.adelphi.edu/president/pdfs/values_of_sports.pdf
Clearly sports are not the only way to learn these things, but they are as good or better than any other way I've ever heard of.
inajeepFeb 7, 2012
Good points, now let's looking at the funding of sports vs academics? What is held up to a more social acceptance. The football player or the smart kid? Notice I didn't go with the obvious nerd vs jock but you get the picture. Team work is important in life but if you are uneducated or limited in education you will make a great long term team member at a fast food establishment.
bobcat7407Feb 7, 2012
"Good points, now let's looking at the funding of sports vs academics?"
I'd be interested to see a comparison on the funding because many schools have sports programs that bring in much more than they spend.
"What is held up to a more social acceptance. The football player or the smart kid?"
Sadly it is often the football player at the cost of the smart kid. Why can't it be both? Greatness in sports is generally achieved from hard work, leadership, team work, etc... That deserves recognition as a good thing. Academic excellence is just as important, more depending on the situation, and should be just as highly sought after.
The point is that sports is an important part of education for many people. That doesn't need to take away from anything else, it just is.
suzillaFeb 7, 2012
"... teaches the difference between winning and striving for excellence"
Music, art, and academics, generally, require a striving for excellence, the pursuit of which is (too often) sweetened with the notion that there's a prize for the win- er uh -- most excellent striver.
bobcat7407Feb 7, 2012
Yes they do. Which is why I said that sports are not the only way to learn these things.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
I agree with you on the unemployment numbers. They are totally fake.
But as for student debt, got news for you: Having a huge debt to pay is awful for EVERYONE. And it's a hell of a lot better to have a huge debt when you're young, healthy and energetic and have a lifetime ahead of you than being older, having a family to support and looking at how to have a stable retirement.
No one should be handed free money, but if you had to choose, young people are the last on the list.
fitzal77Feb 6, 2012
Yes, I can totally see how it's so much better to be unable to find a job, a place to live, and a mode of transportation you can afford while paying your debts after not having had a chance to accumulate any sort of savings. I really feel sorry for the people who've had their whole lives to save for retirement and now receive social security, medicare, and other benefits that are specifically for old people. Let's not forget that their income isn't "earned" so it's taxed at a lower rate.
I'm not an advocate for student loan forgiveness, but you don't seem to understand that most loans are given out without the recipient's full understanding of how much they'll actually be paying (and that they probably won't find a job in their field).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
frankwhite8536Feb 6, 2012
What's the difference of starting off with debt from Student Loans or a $200-300k mortgage? Same difference.
It's the American way to be in debt. You don't own your home until 30 years later, you don't own your car until 5-6 years later, you don't own your education (and yourself actually), until 10-20 years later when your Student Loans are paid off.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
One can walk away from a mortgage. One can declare bankruptcy. Your social security insurance benefits will NEVER be garnished to pay back a mortgage. The interest rates and penalties associated with student loans are illegal in every other area of lending, legal and otherwise.
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
The America way? Not this American, i have never been in debt for over $5000.00, and that was less than a month. I was taught to to be able to pay for what you buy upfront, i understand times are much different now, including the fact no one saves money. But your much better sacrificing when you are young, and living without need when you get older.
You have to refrain from the "shiny object syndrome". You must save and invest wisely. Young people that take the time to learn, can bypass many obstacles. "Think and Grow Rich"
My younger relatives just don't understand, iPhone, $100.00 a month cellphone bill, new car, new gadget every month, eating out all the time. Then they come to me and say, i ain't got no money, how did you get yours, then they don't believe me when i tell them. Oh well, live and learn. They will always be poor in their knowledge.
StopAnimalTortureFeb 6, 2012
I have to ask though... doesn't the government know EXACTLY how many people are employed via the IRS records?
Why the slippy sliding numbers all the time? It should be very easy for the government to produce an exact and perfect account of employment in this country. But ... no... somehow they use a method of calculating that appears to be scientific, but in fact leaves a lot of wiggle room for debate. Why do you suppose that is? Hmmmmm... maybe for the same reason they do the same thing with the Inflation index? And the Scholastic Achievement standards? Maybe it is because they like to keep shuffling the goal posts around all the time? And keep people confused?
All the while, in reality, the employment numbers are very extremely well known by the IRS.
... hmmm ... so strange ...
juliochavezFeb 6, 2012
Let me guess. The Illuminati, right?
StopAnimalTortureFeb 7, 2012
so your explanation for not getting real unemployment numbers from the government is ... what exactly? Or are you disputing that the IRS has the actual numbers? Just curious.
juliochavezFeb 7, 2012
Just read jhw539's comment below. The real, verifiable numbers are publicly available. The headline numbers do not reflect the complete picture because they would be much less useful, in that form, as a gauge of the level of employment.
I'm a little curious about why you think the government "keeps people confused". Now that I read your original comment again, it sounds more like you think it's for political reasons than due to a satanic conspiracy. I've heard several talking heads on financial news programs state that the "real" unemployment rate is well over 20%. Nobody corrects them, even the people disagreeing with them about everything else, because it's common knowledge. It is just not a useful way to report the number for most conversations.
StopAnimalTortureFeb 7, 2012
Right. I'm suggesting that the reason they are nebulous is because the two political parties use the numbers to "prove their case". However, the numbers themselves are concocted in a way that leaves the ordinary citizen confused as to which numbers are "real" vs "political spin" (are we at 8.5% or 20%). The effect of this is to further polarize the country because one side uses one set of numbers as "fact", and the other side uses the other set as "fact". This process could lead to civil unrest eventually, if not abated. My suggestion is that the public look toward the Real Numbers as presented by the facts as recorded by the IRS. They should know quite accurately exactly how many people are legally employed because all businesses have to report to them who is on the payroll. I don't see any reason other than "Politics" why this does not happen. Perhaps the factual information is available to the public, but if so, I never hear about that. I'd like to know where to find actual current employment statistics specifically. Do you happen to know?
StopAnimalTortureFeb 7, 2012
Additionally, my question is... why do we not simply see, instead of six different calculations for unemployment (U1-U6), the one "Employment Percent" number? Certainly that would be much clearer than six different calculations for "unemployment".
My point is that by complicating the metric with six different measures, it confuses people. Why do that? Because it serves a political purpose to do so.
As for what jhw539 wrote, I'm sorry but he is a flagrant and insulting partisan on this issue. I read his post, but found myself wanting to thumbs down his comment, even though his suggestion to look up what U6 and U1 mean seems reasonable enough. Partisanship and insults on the subject of how to calculate and present factual information clearly ... a little too rabid for my tastes.
jhw539Feb 6, 2012
"The unemployment numbers aren't real."
I'm sick of people claiming data is 'meaningless statistics' just because they personally don't understand them. The unemployment numbers are transparently collected and simply calculated. Yes Virgina, they are very real. Now, if you want to use the U6 number (which is almost twice as big as the U3 usually cited, but also trending down) good for you. But drop the bulls**t that there is some nefarious scheme being perpetrated against you just because you're too lazy to look up the methodology and clearly stated definitions. It makes you sound like an idiot or Republican.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/all-measures-of-unemployment-are-falling/2011/08/25/gIQAX5U5tQ_blog.html
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htmComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
If it's bulls**t when Bush does it, it's still bulls**t when Obama does it.
(note the "if")
jhw539Feb 7, 2012
What the hell does Bush have to do with it? The U3 unemployment statistic is the summation of a well publicized survey and analysis. Doesn't matter who is in office. If you want to bitch and moan about how "The unemployment numbers aren't real", then you're really just shouting "Hey, I'm too stupid to google for 60 seconds and find that the U6 statistic is publicly available and exactly what I just implied is being nefariously hidden!"
Although now you mention it, can you google up any raft of "Bush is lying about the unemployment rate by citing the U3!!!11!" nonsense? Or, like yelling "You lie!" during the state of the union or wagging fingers at him on the tarmac, is this kind of childish insults just a Republican thing now?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
StopAnimalTortureFeb 7, 2012
ok so all you just said was "I'm a partisan for the Liberal Cause and I hate Republicans because they're stupid". Very satisfying? For someone complaining about others "wagging fingers" you seem to have no problem doing so yourself. Oh well.
daimposterFeb 7, 2012
Per the Washington Post link you provided, all 4 levels of unemployment have been dropping. That is a good sign. We still have a long way to go but it's a positive sign......sort of like if you're on a boat and it gets flooded. Once the water in the boat begins to reduce, it means that your situation is getting better. However, you still have a lot of water to remove to get back to a dry boat.
suzillaFeb 7, 2012
@readmikenow:
Krugman specifically says that what makes the latest figures good news is precisely the opposite: the drop in unemployment doesn't simply represent an increase in the number of people who have stopped looking for work.
ben7337Feb 7, 2012
For those who deserve to go to college, I don't see how anyone can leave school with too much debt. Anyone can go to community college for two years, and in many cases the top 20-25% can go for free or cheap, often even free tuition to state schools after. Let's face it, only 1/3 of americans even get bachelor's degrees. Most people have the option to be educated at little to no cost. For those who take on massive debt without getting a degree that can properly support it, that is their own fault and foolishness.
That is not to say that education isn't vastly overpriced, just that there are highly affordable options for those who deserve to go to college.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Would you please name one (or more) state that offers free tuition?
ben7337Feb 7, 2012
I am from NJ and I promise you they have the NJ stars program which guarantees anyone in the top 20% of their graduating class can go to community college for the first two years tuition free, and then to any state school of their choosing for the next two years of their degree. The program even allows flexibility after high school graduation, so if a student couldn't afford living expenses for school, they could live at home and earn money after high school before starting the program. Were a student not a dependent of their parents however, they should be able to get state money to help cover living expenses though from what I understand.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Wow, cool - thanks!
chelseaelizobethFeb 7, 2012
Unfortunately, not every state is as generous, and I'm in Oregon.
nygenxerFeb 8, 2012
And my DeLorean is in the shop.
bdbrFeb 6, 2012
We don't just need more jobs, we need better jobs. The BLS released their job projections through 2020 last Wednesday. 80% of the new jobs don't require a college degree; 85% don't require significant experience or training. Most of the income growth since the recession has been government transfers, not actual wage increases.
auditortuxFeb 6, 2012
"80% of the new jobs don't require a college degree; 85% don't require significant experience or training"
The second half of that worries me (but then again, construction and such falls into that category) but the first part really doesn't bother me.
A BS/BA is basically a placeholder degree like the HS diploma was a generation ago. I'd rather we stop focusing on universal higher-education and instead focus on making sure people are doing smart things - going $100k in debt for a degree that provides no real work skills (say, Pre-Arabic Gay Turkish Underwater Basketweaving) is something we should discourage.
I'd love to also see special BS degrees in "hard" degrees (Accounting, Engineering, etc) that allow the person to skip all the "core" classes and just get what is really needed to work in that job. Sorry, I can't remember the last time one of the accountants that work with/for me ever what was learned in that British Literature class...
bdbrFeb 6, 2012
I'd like to see more job-focused education/training that prepares graduates the jobs of today & tomorrow, not the jobs of 30 years ago. We don't need more welders; we need people who can work in highly-automated manufacturing and advanced services.
fertilebastardFeb 7, 2012
We don't need more welders??? What we need are more good welders.. Good welders are gold around here.
walkertxclockerFeb 6, 2012
Shows how much you know.
I only paid $50K to become a Pre-Arabic Gay Turkish Underwater Basketweaver.
auditortuxFeb 6, 2012
Damn, you found the time to work and go to college for that? The scuba gear alone made my friend change major...
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
"A BS/BA is basically a placeholder degree like the HS diploma was a generation ago."
Yep - and therefore a college education, like a high school education, should be free.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
auditortuxFeb 7, 2012
I think that would be a GREAT idea... so long as you maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. And get a degree in a field that actually has a future. So glad we've got all this money just laying around with nothing to do...
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
A 3.0 GPA sounds reasonable enough...agreed! :)
We ALWAYS find money easily enough when the wealthy/corporate interests need it -- even to save them from their own f**k-ups.
tyhoFeb 7, 2012
"a college education, like a high school education, should be free."
I agree.
Then we can have the Department of Education take over the colleges and run them like our high schools. But why stop there, the government can give you a job too, when you get out, paid by taxpayers. You'll also need somewhere to live, government housing, that's next right. All for qualifying B students!
Your sense of entitlement isn't depraved, it is enlightened.
Seriously though, if corporations are so undeserving of the wealth they earn, why educate yourself to become appealing to them. Most skilled positions are employed by those evil companies. You don't need a college education to work the family store, or be a community organizer.
dsmeek36Feb 6, 2012
Notice how the "job creators" line has disappeared from the rhetoric of the Right. It was debunked quickly and easily, and shown to be the lie that it was. That doesn't mean that the jobs issue needs to go away. You won't hear your Congressman pushing for jobs though, and that's why there needs to be one goal above even 'job creation'; it's "Unelect Congress in 2012". Time to elect people who will actually do something.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
Fact is it's private businesses that hire the bulk of the people. They are letting people go and not expanding. The only way to encourage them to hire more people is to allow them to keep MORE of their money by giving them tax breaks not by making it more expensive for them to hire people and raising their taxes. Government doesn't create jobs. It creates waste. You can deny it all you like but this is reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dsmeek36Feb 6, 2012
That's a sweet falsehood that's already dead-in-the-water. I won't deny that private industry creates jobs, but I will deny that millionaires reaping massive bonuses and corporations raking in giant profits (and you can get dozens of examples in less than a minute if you look) is helping the job situation. Look at the numbers if you dare, but if you want to continue with that line of thinking, I suggest you don't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
I'm sorry. Repeating that something is debunked over and over again doesn't make it true.
"Notice how the "grass is green" line has disappeared from the rhetoric of the sane. It was debunked quickly and easily, and shown to be the lie that it was".
Please swallow that bulls**t and stop spewing it out.
dsmeek36Feb 6, 2012
look who is talking. as i said, give me 5 mins and i'll disprove what you are saying 20 times over. it's that easy.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
It's been 1 day 18 hours since your comment. More than 5 minutes. You have not proven jack s**t.
asfinktersezwutFeb 6, 2012
While I understand where you are coming from, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion because you are not even touching on the single reason I would hire people - Demand. I own businesses in 3 countries, and it doesn't matter whether you let me keep 100% of my EBIT, if I have no more demand for what we're selling, then I have no reason to hire anyone!
The economy is so consumer driven and so dependent upon "Consumer Confidence"; I simply find it exasperating that everyone misses this in their arguments here. If there is no more Demand for products and services, then there is no hiring.
savetheseaFeb 6, 2012
Well said - a business can get all the breaks they want, but if nothing is moving off the shelves they will not hire.
What is the opposite of "trickle down? Mass consumption has to come from the bottom up.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Nailed it. Hallelujah! Move to the front of the class!
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
There are two sides to this economy: Supply *and* Demand. I keep seeing this "demand" only rhetoric spouted on digg as if they haven't seen demand driven economies before. Do you know what a demand style economy looks like? Go to communist Russia. Oh there was plenty of demand (lines going around the block) but since supply was utterly diminished (entrepreneurs and investors stripped of any financial power) the economy there was crap.
It is "consumer" driven as well as supply driven. If Apple didn't produce a IPAD there wouldn't be any demand for one.
YachtRokrFeb 6, 2012
Nothing like resorting to straw men examples, huh?
The U.S. has leaned too far to the supply side of the equation over the past 30 years and that's why demand dried up in the U.S. Absent significant hiring, demand can't be restored since people can't purchase goods with air and unicorn tears.
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
People with good benefits and generous salaries can restore demand to the marketplace.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
You're making the claim that the *only* way that there can be demand is if the government takes wealth and distributes it? Really? The last 30 years saw the rise of globalization (which has hurt the middle and lower income population). Tax cuts for the "rich" were actually tied to tax cuts for *everyone*.
I didn't make a strawman. I keep seeing "demand, demand, demand" over and over again without any mention of supply. I gave a example of what a demand style economy looks like. Do you disagree that the Russian people had plenty of demand but no supply to meet it?
dustysantosFeb 6, 2012
Makes since. That is why the architectural industry has the most unemployment. No demand for new houses.
YachtRokrFeb 6, 2012
We get your "catch 22" dilemma, but until businesses, such as yours, begin hiring in earnest in the U.S., it's consumer market and consumer demand will not be revived.
I realize many business owners are hoping the developing world will pick up the demand slack, but they often ignore the fact that disposable incomes in the developing world pale in comparison to those which were lost in the U.S. This means those markets do not serve as a suitable substitute, economically speaking. In time, those markets will collapse too, bringing economic pain to everyone...including business owners.
skyislandFeb 7, 2012
The real catch 22 is that the environment is being forsaken, forgotten and slighted by everyone practically involved in the discussion of economic stimulus and financial growth, even in discussion of fairness of earnings where 1% gets near 1$ of 4 and of wealth control 4 out of 10.. The real threat to recovery is that on present course Earth is dying.
Specifically and in short order to become overwhelmingly apparent and that it is irreversible.. Thing is if industry is focused on retooling and building what's needed for full employment to keep human needs met while protecting the Earth and ecosystems of Nature there would by such wealth generation as never seen in the past and Earth lives.
But people want to count their french fries and drive cars..
No heed for the gent on the bike or doing without to prove the point that some won't work for a system that destroys the world in which we live.. Man does not live by money alone, nor by bread or taking advantage of others but by hope and fair treatment, taking a hand in gov and trying to make it so common good is protected for future living things.
Ocean is acidifying and carbonate balance is disrupted.
The atmospheric concentration of heat trapping gas is rising faster than ever in the 4billion year history of Earth.
Systems are disrupted and revolution, popular revolution is trying to make itself heard.. Is anyone listening to the whole story of the rule by the elite who have so engaged to live.
To live by cavalier neglect of the very planet that sustains..
skyislandFeb 7, 2012
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/02/joseph-romm-is-climate-change-bringing.html
treehugger87Feb 6, 2012
Private business creates jobs, but hoarding wealth to make the wealthy wealthier destroys jobs. Tax breaks do not create jobs, they just create corruption and greed.
YachtRokrFeb 6, 2012
Your fiscal theory is nothing but a fantasy. We've had the Bush tax cuts for close to a decade and, yet, job creation is the last thing they've produced.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 7, 2012
Disagree. Simply cutting taxes is a very poor way to generate jobs. And, the talking point that government doesn't create jobs but creates waste is also too simplistic for me. Our focus should be more focused on initiatives and incentives focused directly on the growth of small to mid-sized businesses. You can't simply say 'here's more money, now go create jobs'. As for Government, clearly our government has often been wasteful and way too stymied by partisan politics and a massive bureaucracy. It needs to be sharply refocused. But, the government can still promote innovation and the next 'big things'. A longer-term focus and less influence of special interests would be movement in the right direction.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
ANYONE who actually buys the jobs numbers the government just released really needs to check out this page and watch the video:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trimtabs-explains-why-todays-very-very-suspicious-nfp-number-really-down-29-million-past-2-mont
Jobs went down not up.
U_logic_error_broFeb 6, 2012
private sector jobs went up public sector jobs went down but those who remained in public sector got big raises... but most of these private sector jobs wont pay enough for future home ownership, its just numbers being used to shut people up for a while maybe just long enough till election lol
auditortuxFeb 6, 2012
Nothing in the data released would support any of that.
Sadly, the idea of home ownership isn't quite compatible with a society that is addicted to credit. To really become home owners requires that those people save a significant portion of their income, not spending it all and them some with credit.
dustysantosFeb 6, 2012
I don't think our government should just pay everyone's debt. That will just increase government dependency. Instead give everyone the opportunity to lift themselves up. I currently owe over $20,000 in a student loan. My husband alone gets $600 of taxes taken out of his income every month. That is ridiculous. If the government can take it's hands out of our pockets we can get out of debt ourselves. Plus put more money into the economy.
nygenxerFeb 6, 2012
What's missing from the discussion is debt forgiveness.
For just 3% (!) of what we gave Wall Street we can eliminate the student loan debt that hobbles an entire generation, and does nothing but enrich the banks with unbreakable usury terms that would make Tony Soprano blush.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
Why should they eliminate student loan debt?
treehugger87Feb 6, 2012
Because the banks corrupted the system to turn it into a for-profit, parasitic enterprise.
UnaBomberrrFeb 6, 2012
i dont know anyone who were forced in student loans do you?
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Everyone with brains and motivation to attend college but couldn't afford it.
(What a stupid question.)
ferretmanFeb 7, 2012
Actually I think it's a stupid answer on your part, nygy.
I had a couple of small student loans, several grants of various sizes that I earned because of my academic skills, and supplemented it all with this quaint thing called a "job". That's how I got through college and paid off the loans in about 4 years after the fact.
NOBODY forces a person to take a student loan. It's often the first adult decision somebody will make--so they need to *act* like adults and step up to their responsibility.
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
Jesus, Ferret, how idiotic can you get. "In each school year between 2000–2001 and 2006–2007, an estimated 60% of bachelor’s degree recipients borrowed to fund their education." You're saying that 60% of Americans should forego college because they can't guarantee that they can be responsible for the debt (since a college degree doesn't guarantee a job).
http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/default.aspx
The bottom line is that lenders need to be responsible and not collude with schools and the government to bilk money from the people they are lending money to. The rules need to be fair, and the punishments need to stop being so excessive. Yeah, we can come up with plenty of valid reasons to throw millions of young Americans into debtor's prison because they've been so irresponsible, but that doesn't really make a better America, does it?
nygenxerFeb 8, 2012
@ferretman:
As recently as the 1970s, a person was able to work a MINIMUM WAGE job...PART TIME (!)...and pay for college without the need of loans.
That ship has sailed.
dustysantosFeb 6, 2012
So because the banks (or any business) "corrupted the system" we should bail out all student loans therefore handing the banks a free ride? If you don't like how the banks handled themselves you should let them fail. It sounds harsh but that is how new business practices are formed and how we better ourselves as a society.
walkertxclockerFeb 6, 2012
I agree. But the reality is we did not let the banks fail. We gave them free money. Instead we could have paid everyone's debt off for a fraction of the price. The banks essentially get a boost because of all the loans being paid back and everyone else gets a boost from having their student loan paid off. WIn-Win.
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
Absolutely. I've said this for a long time. In 2005 there were 48,394,000 mortgages in the United States. For the cost of the two bailouts we could have given each American mortgage holder $30,000 to spend on their mortgage.
For a small bit more we could have investigated and prosecuted all of the predatory lenders who created the terrible loans in the first place, and cleaned up the financial rating system that let it all happen in the first place.
I'm not saying giving each mortgage holder that kind of money would be fair, but it seems like a hell of a lot better solution than just giving money to the banks.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
do i get interest on the loan i paid back?
it is only fair that the 1% pay me more for the money i paid back right?
i mean why should i be the only one paying my loan off like i was supposed to?
why should i be the only one that has to stick to the deal i made?
those evil 1% bankers owe me for paying off my loans.
how dare they make me pay off my debts.
i am so mad over this i could just poop in the streets....
now i get it i am finally an occupooper
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Why should we eliminate student loan debt?
Loans are made by the US gov't at near zero percent interest and since student loans are backed by the gov't, they are absolutely risk-free. So,
1) there is no reason to have a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit,
2) we bailed them out -- so it's our money anyway,
3) there is no sense in holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs,
4) just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc.,
and
5) our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.
rightfutureFeb 7, 2012
You are correct.
Society is out of whack.
Profit and profiteering should never be the dominant purpose (or reason) of any transaction.
The benefit of the transaction should be.
The purpose and benefit to society of a student loan is to help students pay for school.
It is not to hold them hostage for the profit of the loan company. It is not to plunder the lion's share of a struggling students first forays into supporting themselves. Unfairly indenturing students hurts us all.
We should all work towards improving the ability of all people to have easier access to a better education. We should also work towards making it easier for people entering the workforce. The benefit to society is obvious, more people with an education, and more workers with a chance for success, mean a better society. No tax, and no profit motive should corrupt that pursuit. The investment and burden should fairly come from the established and the successful, shared through taxes and society, not shackling individuals who have less access to upward mobility.
The purpose and benefit of a business to society is to provide value to it and it's citizens and in exchange it is allowed to make money fairly.
It is not to allow them to profit to the point where they take the lion's share of workers right to fruit of their production. It is not to allow them to profit and succeed while the societies fail around them. It is not to give them freedom to do what they want, to conduct business as they choose. Business exists to serve society 1st; it's consumers, it's workers, it's executives, and it's founders should all fairly benefit in that success, in that order.
The purpose is not to concentrate that benefit as much as possible to the top.
A society exists for the benefit of all it's citizen's, not just it's successful. Living in a society means working together to share in the benefits of our collective efforts (as well as fairly benefiting from one's own), and not selfishly separating themselves from it. Society started with the very idea that two people can (find a way to) work together so that Both will benefit more than they can by themselves. You watch my back and I'll watch yours. Together we should work to multiply our efforts, not leech off of them. The purpose of society is to pursue an improvement of the Quality of Life, both individually and together.
The Successful should fairly and rightly bear the balance of the weight of society, because they have the capacity, the freedom, and the responsibility to do so. Society is what gives individuals the right to pursue success and financial freedom. This is part of the implied social contract; you have the right to succeed in society as long you participate in it; the more you do, the more you should. The degree of success should fairly convey a degree of responsibility. As any person (or business) can afford to take care of themselves and fairly participate in the success of the society, it should bear a proportionate share in the costs, burdens, and success/failure of it, as successful members of a society. Success does not mean freedom from having to participate in the failures of society, in fact it confers a greater responsibility to do so.
Everyone should have a proportionate break to the degree that they struggle to participate in sharing societies and their own individual burden. It is in the best interest of everyone in society to improve the situation of the have-nots and the less successful, so that they can participate in sharing that burden. So that Society is also healthy, and not just the healthy minority.
nygenxerFeb 8, 2012
@rightfuture:
That was beautiful.
FalafelP001Feb 6, 2012
Do you always walk through life with your hand out and then blame others for the lack of success you have had? Welcome to Obama country.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
Well said.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 7, 2012
That certainly hits the Republican talking point. It would be nice to get past that type of thought and deal with real issues. Yes, we need to make people accountable. Yes, people should honor their commitments. At the same time, the real issue for me is an 'under-educated' population being outpaced by the Asian world. Tuition costs spiraling at a rate higher than inflation won't help.
norman619Feb 7, 2012
Who was FORCED to take out a student loan? They made that CHOICE now these same people don't want to make good on their promise to pay the bank back for funding their education. f**k them. They made the decision to borrow money.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
You're blaming the victims, norman619. When a casino gets caught rigging the roulette wheel, do you blame the players?
JustSayNoPartyFeb 7, 2012
This is exactly what frustrates me as well. It's way too simplistic time and again to simply say 'you entered in to this agreement'. f**k you for not abiding by the terms. These Banks employ teams of lawyers and other experts to squeeze out every penny possible from loans. The student on the other hand often finds these loans to be their only source of funds. Thus, you pit profit motive and schemes set by very savvy business interests against the student. Surprise. Students lose and end up with a mountain of debt.
In the end, I want a more educated population. We've fallen behind many other countries in providing the needed skills. Do we really want to make it 'that much harder' for the next generation to compete?
spatula7Feb 6, 2012
I'd rather we invest in our students than Bain Capital, the banks, oil and gas companies, defense contractors, etc...but competing on a global scale with all the other countries pumping their citizens money into special interest groups, I guess it will probably never stop...but again, I'd rather invest in education than industry elites any day of the week.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Why should we eliminate student loan debt?
Loans are made by the US gov't at near zero percent interest and since student loans are backed by the gov't, they are absolutely risk-free. So,
1) there is no reason to have a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit,
2) we bailed them out -- so it's our money anyway,
3) there is no sense in holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs,
4) just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc.,
and
5) our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.
UnaBomberrrFeb 6, 2012
i paid my student loans back, are you going to reimburse me for them?
dauntless1Feb 6, 2012
So, because you got robbed, the act of robbing is ok?
Perhaps you need to be more clear.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
I also paid off my student debt (all my income went to paying off the debt before buying cool and expensive toys), so no, we're asking if you're going to reimburse us for being responsible. Some other jackass went off and bought a corvette right out of school but still has student loans gets a free ride from the government? I also picked a major where I knew I could get a job. Where I know there were 10 other people who got degrees in business or underwater basket-weaving and were surprised when they were managing at Staples or were unemployed.
Those who make smart decisions should be rewarded, not those who make dumb decisions. So either you need to come up with a better system, or forgiving loans is the worse possible thing you could do.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Hey assh**e: ENGINEERS have been devastated by this last decade.
"Those who make smart decisions should be rewarded, not those who make dumb decisions."
So...hold the victims of the banks' illegal deeds responsible for a sabotaged economy to the benefit of the saboteurs?!?
That's quite a blind spot you have there...but I guess having your head that far up your ass will have that effect on your vision.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 7, 2012
Sorry, what illegal deeds again?
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
I'm a engineer. All my engineer friends from college and myself have jobs. You need to look at moving if you can't find work.
And Obama stated quite clearly in a interview recently that engineers are actually doing quite well in the employment market (one thing I actually agree with him on). Do you think Obama is full of s**t?
Engineers were *devastated* by the tech bubble popping. But by 2005 the job market recovered and has stayed relatively strong compared to other job markets.
As for your last two paragraphs... I stated quite clearly f**k face that responsibility should be rewarded. I couldn't give a s**t about the banks, they can fail if they made poor decisions. If someone took out a ton of loans for under water basket weaving then they can have fun paying that off, as that was their choice. The loan is the cheapest interest rate in the country, and you had a choice in order to take it out or not. If you should be pissed at anyone, be pissed at higher education institutions that charge a arm in a leg for services that are constantly getting worse by the year.
If someone is in a actual good major like engineering, they better look at getting off their ass and leaving their college town to look for work. Because there are plenty of opportunities out there.
nygenxerFeb 8, 2012
YOU are an engineer?
OK engineer, tell us how much it costs to buy the services of a EE with a master's degree from Bangalore, India and - since you must be good at math - how can one financially justify the cost of obtaining a master's degree in electrical engineering in order to compete with someone who lives well on $6 an hour?
(Oops! I gave away the answer to the first part of the question.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
We're talking about jobs here in the U.S. As for Visa engineers working here in the U.S. those are limited in number and only make up a small fraction of the engineering jobs here in the U.S.
"since you must be good at math"
Do you have any intelligence at all? How the f**k are you a engineer? No wonder you can't find a job. Your sarcastic jab has *absolutely* nothing with what you are discussing. You're a bitter pathetic little man and your political persuasions do not surprise me.
Engineers are still relevant in the U.S. because of the quality of our work. If you are competing on the cutting edge of technology (weapon systems, processors, electrical grids, high speed networking) you need people not only educated in the U.S. but who also live locally.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 7, 2012
Ultimis, I agree with this line of thought. People do need to be responsible and pay what they owe. But, at the same time, we do have to address the system itself. At a time when we need a more educated populace, it just doesn't work to have spiraling education costs and no good way to fund those costs.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
I've personally being saying for years that the educational bubble will be the next big pop in the U.S. Costs are going to get to the point that no student will be able to afford it, and then Universities will start to implode.
I have no solutions for educational costs. I hear its bureaucracy and overhead, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. I do know that when I was in school my tuition costs nearly doubled yet the facilities I used were still 10 years+ out of date. So I have no clue where all that tuition money was going.
UnaBomberrrFeb 6, 2012
i didnt get robbed at all. I paid my loans back happily. Now im 30, have everything i could ever want and am happy as can be.
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
but will it be there in the future? and what about all those who don't have it and aren't as happy as you?
Graf_OrlockFeb 7, 2012
There's plenty of open spots at the drum circle for them.
ridgerunner5Feb 6, 2012
I'm in the process of paying off my loans, and I have no qualms about it. I asked for their help, I agreed to the terms, and I intend to follow through on the contract.
Making an agreement and then bailing on it because it is an inconvenience is NOT the proper way to do things. And those who suggest it should be the way are disgusting free loaders.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Ive already paid paid more than three times what I've borrowed and have more than four times left to go. There's absolutely no justification for that when the money originates at the US treasury at near zero percent interest -- and since student loans are backed by the gov't, they are absolutely risk-free. Please give one reason why there is a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit.
Paying 4, 5 or 6 times the amount borrowed is NOT an inconvenience. It is ROBBERY.
I also disagree with holding the victims of the banks' illegal deeds responsible for a sabotaged economy to the benefit of the saboteurs.
Lastly, just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc. because our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class, and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ridgerunner5Feb 7, 2012
YOU agreed to it. Nobody was holding a gun to your head telling you to sign on the line. Take some f**kin responsibility for your actions.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
So when a roulette wheel in a casino is rigged, you'd still hold the players responsible?
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
Uh, the interest rate for student loans is the lowest in the country (3-5%). Certain loans you don't even pay interest on until you graduate and find a job (or a certain period after graduation). So I seriously f**king doubt you paid 4, 5, or 6 times the borrowed amount. You would have to be paying on those loans for 60+ years to achieve something to miraculous. And that's assuming you weren't actually paying anything for the first 50 years.
The same applies for credit cards as for loans, you pay more than the minimum payment *always*. You find your highest debt (at the time I got out of college my car died so I had new car payments and credit card bills, those were paid off first at the maximum amount I could pay). Once other debt was in order I pay more than a thousand per month toward my student loans.
It also helped that I worked nearly fully time throughout college.
nygenxerFeb 8, 2012
Interest, penalties, collection fees...you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
I have no idea what I'm talking about except *I lived it within the last few years*.
What kind of f**king penalties were you racking up that would make you pay more than double the loan amount with such ludicrously low interest rates?
dauntless1Feb 6, 2012
@ultimis,una,ridge
That wasn't the point. The point is that rates on many student loans are exorbitant, and unnecessary.
When a con artist gets caught,one does not make the people still making him payments finish paying him, nor does one say "well, I paid him, so you should too". That's not how life works. One person getting hosed (whether or not they turn out happy with the consequences, or whether or not they were ok with getting screwed) does not mean getting hosed is smart, or right, or that EVERYONE should be happy with it.
And while I appear to be getting painted with a broad brush here, keep in mind that I don't have any student loan debt either. That's not the point.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Exactly.
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
"rate on many student loans are exorbitant"? Oh really? My student loan was less than 3%. There is a reason you are forced to pay student loans even if you go bankrupt.
bdbrFeb 6, 2012
Personal financial responsibility doesn't benefit the bankers and politicians. Don't expect to ever be rewarded for it.
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
And yet personal financial irresponsibility is rewarded by loan forgiveness windfalls?
That's about as perverse an incentive as you can get.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
As stated, for 3% of what we gave the financially irresponsible banks, we can wipe out the debt that hobbles two generations.
Graf_OrlockFeb 7, 2012
Those were loans, and by and large have been repaid.
The student loan debt is ~ $1 trillion. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but no one "gave" the banks $1 quadrillion in taxpayer funds.
Finally, what moral imperative is driving this forgiveness, and is there any cookie given to those millions of folks who had the misfortune of being responsible and paying back their student loans?
Graf_OrlockFeb 7, 2012
Mea culpa. Slipped a digit. You're saying the financial system was given a $100 trillion bailout. Still wrong, but an order of magnitude less.
Graf_OrlockFeb 7, 2012
Hell, nevermind. You're thinking it's $34T. Literature major, not math major. I'll blame my lousy public university education.
Problem is there's only ~$100T in the world economy. So a $34T bailout still seems a bit out there.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Don't worry about the math. I'm an engineer, so I have a bad habit of taking it as a given...
"The money was paid back" is a half-truth: the US gov't gave them money at 0% interest which the banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% and -- voila! -- huge bonuses for all of the genius bankers who managed to make a profit on free taxpayer money.
While we here at the bottom argue about nickel and dime budget cuts and the like, the bastards on top (whose greed and illegal activities crashed the system) have robbed us blind.
PS Wanna hear something really scary? It's estimated that the total amount of outstanding financial derivatives is around $500 trillion.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
It's interesting to talk of "personal responsibility" while ignoring the personal responsibility of the bankers that we bailed out.
bdbrFeb 7, 2012
What makes you think THEY are going to pay for it? WE the people will pay for it just like we pay for every bailout. Unlike the bankers, we don't have lobbyists crawling all over the capital.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
You're right - totally agree! We already have paid for it. Why didn't we demand they make concessions to debtors (housing, students and otherwise)? Why not benefit from it?
Answer: because we don't have lobbyists.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
"i paid my student loans back, are you going to reimburse me for them?"
I've paid off more than three times what I've borrowed and still have FOUR TIMES what I borrowed to go. Since the loans originated at the US treasury at near zero percent interest AND student loans are backed by the gov't (meaning they are ABSOLUTELY RISK-FREE) therefore there is no justification whatsoever to have a middle man in the equation who exists merely to profit.
Additionally, we bailed them out so it's our money anyway -- in other words, We the People have already paid off the loans.
Furthermore, there is no sense in holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs. Only a true sociopath would conclude otherwise.
Finally, just as it is better for all of us if home mortgages are refinanced [note: I didn't buy a f**king house that I couldn't afford either] it is absolutely imperative that we not permanently hobble those who are of the age to raise families, buy houses, etc. because our security as a nation depends on a healthy and vibrant middle class, and two generations of indentured servants is antithetical to that reality.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
What's so special about young university graduates that they deserve to be handed free money? If we're handing out free money, there are a lot of people who deserve it more than people who are young, healthy, energetic and have a lifetime of income ahead of them.
And usury terms? As far as I know, student loans have some of the lowest interest rates.
treehugger87Feb 6, 2012
Look up student loan rates. You can get pretty much any kind of unsecured personal loan for less than the rates that are being offered on student loans.
And the term usury is appropriate. Miss a few payments on your student loans, and you can pretty quickly find yourself paying 20+%.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4987336
ridgerunner5Feb 6, 2012
Then you're doing it wrong. My student loans are by far the lowest interest rate on credit I've had. I worked harder to pay off my credit card debt becuase the rates were rediculous. I knew I could get by on minimums in the meantime with my student loans because the rates were so low.
ferretmanFeb 7, 2012
Mine were too, Ridge. Lowest loan rates I ever had.
Don't know where Tree and Nyx found their rates, but apparently they took the first thing that came along and have made nothing but minimum payments since.
nygenxerFeb 8, 2012
How old are you, ferretman?
(And no, I paid my loan down to <$4K -- then the lost decade hit.)
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
Miss a few payments on any loan and you're going to see your interest rate jump. I'm not getting your point here.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
treehugger...
dont miss payments
if you miss payments then you break the deal, if YOU break the deal then YOU get penalized for it.
it is your deal, you made it.
go find a tissue to wipe your tears, pooping in the streets is not going to fix it for you.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
So when a roulette wheel in a casino is rigged, you'd still hold the players responsible?
Holding the victims of the banks illegal deeds responsible when the economy has been sabotaged to the benefit of the saboteurs. Only a true sociopath would conclude otherwise.
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
So I'm 22, fresh out of college, working hard and finally making it. But oops! I missed a payment! Suddenly my $149 a month student loan that I could manage turns into a $350/month student loan of 2.5 times what I had originally borrowed.
You think THAT is how student loans should work?
Every young person should be able to sign up for these loans knowing that there is NO chance that usury from these loans is going to destroy their entire life.
Graf_OrlockFeb 8, 2012
Just like a credit card. Did you try contacting the loan servicer to see if they'd drop it if you set things up on autopay?
Otherwise, yeah that's how it should work, if that's the terms of the agreement as a penalty if you are late or skip payments. You did willingly sign that agreement.
treehugger87Feb 8, 2012
It shouldn't be left up to the whim of the loan servicer to decide if they are going to drop it or not. There is plenty of evidence that these servicers are willing to go to great lengths to extract as much money as possible out of people.
There is a fair assumption by every young person and their parents that because these loans are controlled by the government that the terms will be fair and reasonable. As for understanding the terms and guarding yourself against usury, that is not the job of some 18 year old kid, that's the job of government - to protect people from thugs disguised as bankers.
Graf_OrlockFeb 9, 2012
It's not up to whim, it's up to the contract which you as a responsible adult understood and signed.
If you have the chutzpah, you can occasionally get the tele-service folks to bend a few rules and knock the percentage rate down. But YMMV. I've found the indian call center guys the most strict. Might help if you have an indian friend who can plead your case - no joke, had a co-worker do that and got more done than she could on her own. I don't want to speculate on the cause, but it did seem the guy on the other line was much more sympathetic to the same story when it was told in hindi.
I'm not unsympathetic to your situation. I had the same thing happen to me about 2 years out of school. But it really isn't the bank's fault they're following the language in the contract. It's not the job of the government to keep you out of trouble, it's your responsibility. And now it's your responsibility to tackle the issue and either accept the payments or try every angle to get them reduced. That's what a contract is, what rule of law is in this society. You live by your word, or accept the consequences.
Best of luck.
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
I paid off my student loan last amongst my debt as it was by far the lowest interest rate. I even sat on it for a year at around 1 buck to add to my credit.
Graf_OrlockFeb 9, 2012
Same here (student loan being the last one paid off).
The biggest problem from what I saw with my peers was folks not fully grasping the amount of debt they'd have. I have a buddy who used loans to cover his BS at Berkeley (reasonably cheap public school) plus 3 years private med school (til he started to burnt out), then 3 years of private law school. We're both in our forties now, but he's still paying his loans back and has been in the same apartment we shared when we were in law school together.
It's human nature to delude yourself when you're ~20 that you're going to make millions, so a few tens of thousands in debt isn't meaningful. When you get into your thirties and realize you're not as bright as you thought and your career not as meteoric, and you could really have used the $600 or so you're paying on your student loans this month for something else, well...
Doesn't mean anyone should get a free ride, but I can see how some who didn't plan well on their educational path would really *really* like that burden gone.
fitzal77Feb 6, 2012
They have a lifetime of burger-flipping income ahead of them the way things are going.
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
Perhaps they should learn basic supply and demand, and use college to gain skills that are in demand?
fitzal77Feb 6, 2012
A lot can change in 4 years.
Additionally, not all industries with high demand have a similarly high demand for training recent graduates.
Furthermore, please consider the hypocrisy of society telling young people they can be anything they want and then criticizing them for not having the foresight to know they were pursuing a dying industry.
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
Well, I'm not going to hold anyone's hand because they were told they can be an astronaut and now are unemployable. These people are adults, they need to grow up and act like it.
Anyone who majors in Art History or Music - my hat's off to them, assuming they purposefully decided that pursuing their interest meant more to them than making large salaries. There are such folks out there, and there is a great deal of integrity with such a conscious choice on what will make you happy in your life. But don't graduate with a MA in Music and then whine how unfair that other folks are RICH!!11!!! and you're still working in a niche record shop.
You can definitely spot dying/growth industries though, and those patterns last beyond 4 years. Even where there isn't great demand for newly minted graduates, there are usually paths into those careers if you're willing to be humble and work your way through any opportunity to get what you want.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
ya noone told me when i got my PHD in artistic ritual tree dancing that my 8 years of post-grad work would not be paid for....
it was as great a shock to me when all of a sudden there is no work for a master level tree dancer such as myself....
if only Bush would not have spent all of our money on war and his oil buddies i could have a great job and maybe be a 1% like the people i am so envious of...
but now i am 33 and my parents will not pay for me or my loans anymore....
it is so unfair
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Not even medical doctors are immune to the disease of OUTSOURCING.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
I heard UPS is going to outsource their delivery service to India.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
In reality, FedEx and UPS often outsources delivery to the USPS. Let that sink in for a moment.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Well, for every $1 spent by the gov't on the GI Bill, almost $7 in economic activity was generated.
And as the old saying goes, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
mbraynardFeb 6, 2012
Sorry, dude, but you're not getting out from under your loans.
I paid mine off and future generations are going to have to pay theirs off; you don't get to benefit from a one time pass of being lucky enough to have outstanding student loans.
As if students need even more incentive not to find a real job.
And thanks for making the whole of GenX look like the pathetic, whinny losers we know they are.
BTW - Wall Street paid it's loans BACK.
/just young enough to miss out on being a gen x loser.
eternalsnowsFeb 6, 2012
Thanks for reminding us that the banks did in fact repay the government. It's easy to forget that simple fact amidst all the hysteria. BofA got $45 billion and they paid it back. Wells Fargo got $25 billion and they paid it back. Goldman Sachs got $10 billion and they paid it back. Etc. What's the problem? Everybody should have to pay back their debts. It's part of the social contract. Forgiving student loans is a terrible idea.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
well said.
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
Sorry, got to disagree, you know me.
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
@mbraynard, eternalsnows, Yes, while tarp loans were paid back, at least they say they were(GM and Chrysler said there's were too, but didn't we still loose money, why yes we did).
What about the 13 Trillion, yes that's with a T, the FED loaned banks around the world, have those been paid back? Why lets file a FOIA request and 20 years from now we might just find out. Oh what, we have to sue them to find out? Just great!
Most on wall street were forced to take the loans, they didn't need the money anyway, guess what, they got free use of billions of dollars to make EVEN money off of, weeeeeeee.
And we can't even get a Thank You from the bastards. Oh, i forgot, their "doing God's work". *Quote from: Lloyd Blankfein
I am not for, forgiving student loans or loans of any type, but they could frickin help in some way.
You guys need to look at the entire picture.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
I've paid off mine more than three times now...and I've got four times left to go.
I've yet to hear a single reason why a middle man is necessary or a single reason to justify terms and conditions that are illegal everywhere else. After all, the money originates from the US treasury at 0% interest and, since it's backed by the US gov't, is risk-free.
BTW - "the money was paid back" is a half-truth: the US gov't gave them money at essentially 0% interest.
The banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% and pocketed the difference.
So there's that...but let's not let the facts cloud the issue.
eternalsnowsFeb 7, 2012
"The banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% and pocketed the difference." This is entirely, completely, irrefutably incorrect. It's certainly possible to disagree in principle with TARP, et al., but basing your "argument" on blatant falsehoods is the height of irresponsibility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
TARP is only 1/60th of the money at issue.
What I wrote is sickening but it IS accurate. (Did you even *try* the google? Please do so before responding.)
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
No, it's not, use your Google your finger instead of picking your nose.
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
Yes, that's all well and good, but what about the $7 trillion secret loan program run by the fed under Bush? Are you *sure* the banks have paid back all of MY money?
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/the_7_trillion_secret_loan_program_the_government_and_big_banks_should_be_punished_for_deceiving_the_public_about_their_hush_hush_bailout_scheme_.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbraynardFeb 7, 2012
Well, a few things.
First, "Bush" never ran the "fed."
Second, it's not really your money anymore than the money in my pocket is also your money. The Fed is suppose to be independent and you shouldn't confuse its funds with, say, the federal government's fiscal spending on butter and bombs.
Third, it wasn't a loan, it was an investment in commercial paper in order to get more currency in circulation. And, insofar as none of those banks have gone under and they all continue to make their interest payments (which DOES give you money since the Fed's profits go to the US treasury), yeah, they have paid it back in accordance with the terms of the paper.
To those unfamiliar with finance and monetary policy, I can see how a partial explanation in failing online magazines like Slate can confound you.
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
Thanks for the clarifications in your post. I wasn't expecting a defense of this use of fed money. I'm interested in your claim that this huge amount of money has been "paid back"
Spitzer's article linked to the original story from Bloomberg, which is here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
mbraynardFeb 7, 2012
I'm not sure what your question is at this point.
I remember reading your article when it came out, but I think the article answers all the questions you seem to be getting at. Namely:
1) There was a credit freeze around the world and the Fed unfreezed it.
2) The loans the fed made were collateralized appropriately. IE - if the bank went under, the Fed would be among the first if not _the_ first to get paid.
3) Collateralized. A bank can be flush on it's balance sheet but if it's assets are illiquid, it can't make loans or cover the credit it extends to employers, etc. So the Fed made loans based on the collateral to provide liquidity.
4) Stigma. That's an interesting discussion and I'm not sure what to think about it. By keeping it private, it makes it easier for banks who are in trouble to get the money they need from the fed so they can rebound. We already had one instance in the last crash where a bank was destroyed because a senator bad mouthed them. This created a run and then the FDIC had to pay off the account holders.
yurmutha412Feb 6, 2012
The trouble with debt forgiveness is that the education inflation ball keeps rolling. People have to wake up and find alternatives to the high school costs we currently have. It's like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving guaranteed housing loans. It just causes inflation and in the end, hurts everyone. We've got to stop guaranteeing these loans. If loans are hard to get, alternatives will be found.
mbraynardFeb 7, 2012
Excellent point. It's time for this bubble to burst.
One thing that is keeping the bubble going, and will keep the crash from being too bad, is all these foreigners who keep coming here to go to school and paying full price - even though the Federal Government makes it harder for them to come here for an education.
Further, this may also be a way out of the real estate problem since the Feds are giving out green cards to people who buy land here. Hurray for immigration!
auditortuxFeb 6, 2012
First, what we gave Wall Street (TARP) was paid back. I doubt that these students we give this money to would pay it back.
Second, student loans are approaching $1 trillion dollars. No matter the estimate, TARP cost somewhere around $450 billion (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12118). So we're talking about a bailout twice the size of TARP. Can you please show me where you get 3%?
Last, what would you do to someone who, say, got an inheritance and paid of their student loans a few months ago? Why should they suffer but you not? Are you going to be okay with the banks suddenly losing capitalization because now those loans are forgiven? Or is the US going to just write checks to the banks and pay them off. Is that no a gift to the banks (sudden influx of cash!)
Okay, PS: No one forced anyone to take student loans. If you did not stop and think that maybe trying to borrow your way through four years of life might not be a good idea, why should anyone bail you out? People constantly quote the cost of a college education - tuition, room and board. Only problem is that only one of those costs is really incidental - you've still got to eat and sleep even if you worked. Maybe it wouldn't have been your cost (maybe you stay with your parents) but the net result is you still borrowed to meet basic life necessities. Bad, bad idea. Maybe they'll teach their kids to be allergic to debt.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
"The money was paid back" is a half-truth: the US gov't gave them money at 0% interest.
The banks then loaned the money BACK to the US gov't at >0% then pocketed the difference. So there's that...but let's not let the facts cloud the issue.
Who is talking about TARP? TARP is 1/60th the total amount loaned to the banks -- almost $30 trillion dollars. (Really? You couldn't do the math? "Three percent of x equals one trillion. Find x." That was too difficult to do?)
The only people "forced" to take out student loans are those who are smart and motivated enough to attend college but lack money. Next.
auditortuxFeb 7, 2012
"The only people "forced" to take out student loans are those who are smart and motivated enough to attend college but lack money"
Funny, I was smart enough to get into college but my parents could afford it. I worked and put myself through college. Instead I guess we should just encourage people to borrow their way through school?
"Who is talking about TARP? TARP is 1/60th the total amount loaned to the banks -- almost $30 trillion dollars. (Really? You couldn't do the math? "Three percent of x equals one trillion. Find x." That was too difficult to do?)"
Oh, I'd like to see a reference for that.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Try google.
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
They are too busy picking their nose to use their Google finger
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
Ah, so that's your solution - if you want to go to college make sure you are born to parents who can afford it.
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
It was a typo as the next sentence made clear.
"I worked and put myself through college."
treehugger87Feb 7, 2012
Okay, fair enough.
I worked through college and I took out student loans. the thing is, though, that I graduated before you had to fear that your entire financial future was at risk from the bank that managed my loan. My rate was generous compared to current rates, and most of all, if I missed a payment, was late or became unemployed and needed a deferment, my rate wasn't going to change, and I wasn't going to be charged penalties that could potentially double or triple the amount I had initially borrowed.
On the flip side, my student loan interest wasn't tax deductible. Of course, the cynic in me says that's only in place now because banks who make profit off that interest want it that way.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
I graduated not that long ago, and my interest rates were cheaper than any other debt I had. I paid my student loans off last.
I'm currently buying a home and interest rates across the country are at their lowest point in decades (Average 3%); so I have a hard time believing some students have ludicrously high interest rates (unless they're using credit cards for "student loans"). Usually you sign up for student loans through the school (that has a real bank behind it) that make certain your rates are cheap. On certain student loans they don't even start charging you interest until you graduate and have a job.
The only negative aspect of student loans is you are unable to default on them or clear them using a bankruptcy. But that is the main reason student loans have the cheapest interest rate compared to other debt.
mscsbcFeb 6, 2012
A truly realistic evaluation of ground realities by a popular columnist and economic expert.All concerned must heed to his timely and well-worded advice to keep the economy from falling in to doldrum once more.His closing lines sum it so well:
"So here’s what needs to be said about the latest numbers: yes, we’re doing a bit better, but no, things are not O.K. — not remotely O.K. This is still a terrible economy, and policy makers should be doing much more than they are to make it better".
nygenxerFeb 6, 2012
Agreed with everything you wrote except that we're still IN the doldrums.
The small bit of optimism that Dr. Krugman writes of is the creation of jobs -- mostly s**tty, low-paying, no-benefits, no long-term commitment jobs. One can't base a recovery on that; one can't undo the damage of a lost decade on that; one can't bring a forgotten generation X (now spilling over to Y) back up to speed on that; one sure as hell can't buy a car much less a house (as he mentions) or consider raising a family on that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 6, 2012
Exactly. You can't raise a family on that, yet we think an entire generation is supposed to be happy with it just to make greedy destructive corporations happy.
arpadFeb 6, 2012
Any column that starts with a lamentation about the need for a "a world with a better policy elite" isn't a realistic evaluation and proves Krugmann's not much of an economics expert.
If it's one thing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China proved it's that a "policy elite" with too much control is what you want if widespread poverty is your goal. The Soviet Union clung to its "policy elite" as their economy nose-dived into oblivion and the Chinese came to the realization that an economic policy elite is a good way to make sure there's little to no economic growth so freed, as much as their ruling authoritarians could stand, the economy.
Face it, Krugmann's serving intellectual dessert to the likes of you, for a right, nice return on his time, and the likes of you is less and less relevant to governance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asfinktersezwutFeb 6, 2012
"the Chinese came to the realization that an economic policy elite is a good way to make sure there's little to no economic growth"
Wow. How incorrect can you possibly be? The Chinese economy is managed and steered by a "Policy Elite". The entire growth and development of the economy is driven by deliberate policy mixed with market reform and just enough freedom and capitalism mixed into a centrally planned economy to maximize economic growth while minimizing true economic and political freedom.
In point of fact, the Chinese have studied the history and growth of western consumer societies and markets and are furiously replicating the best of what they found - including things like Interstate highways, telecommunications and the development and growth of a consumerist "middle class". These things are not developing organically or by chance, but are part and parcel with the Economic Development policies of the Chinese Government.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
and the Chinese have a huge internal problem because of it.
they know and are furiously trying to do something about it.
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/09/chinas-economic-problems-deepen-world.html
http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/29/china-yuan-moving-toward-global-currency/
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Yes, they are trying to spread the wealth around because -- as has been demonstrated every single place and time in all of history -- **any** society with unfair, systemic distance between the haves and the have-nots is unstable as a three-legged table.
rightfutureFeb 7, 2012
Absolutely.
A small group of people doing well never trumps the majority of people doing well.
The heart of the problem is that the haves will always have the incentive to take care of their own 1st, and by intent, effort, or quiet abstinence they will continue to increasingly exclude the have-nots.
Over time exclusionary behavior, intentional or not, causes the majority of the people to slip into the category of have-nots, and thus miss out on the benefits of sharing in the success of the society that they are part of.
When any group is left out of the progress and benefit of the success of society (to any degree), it will wither away.
When any society excludes the majority of its people from benefiting from it, it will eventually fail.
ferretmanFeb 7, 2012
Wow...I find myself partially agreeing with Krugman for once.
Usually he's so far off the mark that his advice would hurt rather than help, but he's right that taking the focus off of job creation is a bad move.
mandrakelordFeb 7, 2012
Things always are "Not Ok" when the general population blindly hand over society to the New World Order :/
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
Here, Here!
karmashockFeb 6, 2012
Krugman's answer to everything is spend more money we don't have. If he's a genius economist then that has to be the easiest job in the world. Imagine if that were an acceptable answer in your job?
Just spend more money! Hey, raise everyone's salary. Hey, just double the size of the operation!
The man is a cartoon. Every answer is spend more money we don't have. He never has a solution that involves not spending more money. Shouldn't an accomplished economist find ways to stimulate or manage an economy that doesn't involve flooding it with debt money? Because I'm pretty sure a four year old could come up with most of his brilliant plans.
This is all beyond absurd... and the NY Times heightens all that by publishing this bozo.
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
I found it interesting that he's making a great case that the economy is not OK. Of course that's correct, and surprisingly doesn't jibe with everything Democrats and Obama are telling us now.
Of course his solution seems to be QE4,5,6 whatever we are on now, which is his usual answer to the economy, and hasn't worked.
karmashockFeb 7, 2012
again, imagine if that were an acceptable answer in your business or job.
Ad agency having a hard time? Take out some huge loans and spend more money. Okay, so you're spending nearly twice what you're taking in revenue but clearly you just need to spend more money.
Car dealership not making enough sales? Spend more money. Lets just buy the cars full price from the auto company and then sell them to the consumer at half price. That will get our sales up!
His ideas are just so completely stupid. It's so dumb that it's complicated to explain exactly how stupid it is...
Look at the New York Times itself... they're having a hard time selling papers. Well... What would Krugman recommend? Take out some huge loans, raise the price of papers (like taxes), spend most of the debt money on advertising or "messaging"... and wait for the money to roll in by draining your credit.
He's just painfully stupid.
juliochavezFeb 7, 2012
Wrong. He advocates taking money back out of the system during times of robust economic growth. His message is consistent. In contrast, you sound just like a half-wit republican running for office. "Spend money we don't have?" What the f**k does that mean? You have no idea how our monetary system works ( or, at least is designed to work ) We don't have ANY money. We only use IOUs, the value of which is determined primarily by how many of them are in circulation.
If you want to argue that we should be on a gold standard and do away with fractional reserve banking, your argument would at least have some merit. Instead you just shriek "WE CAN'T SPEND MONEY WE DON'T HAVE". It is nothing like your home finances. Nothing. Go educate yourself, even a little bit, then comment on the situation. A good way to start would be by reading Krugman, if you could follow it.
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
LOL - awesome post.
karmashockFeb 7, 2012
Really? Then he must have advocated doing that during the past boom times.
Did he?
No.
Then you're wrong.
Try again. The only place He's consistent is in his own self promotion.
KapsiotFeb 6, 2012
When is the NY Times going to go bankrupt so we can stop hearing from this bed-wetting lib?
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
Clearly they're not taking Krugman's advice about spending money they don't have.
rightfutureFeb 7, 2012
To me the reasons are clear.
Greed is the ultimate result of our society. The focus on Individual Competition and the pursuit of money has become so out of balance with Societal Cooperation, and the pursuit of Quality of Life together, that it may tear itself apart. Money should be the grease that moves the wheels of society and not the point of it. When the pursuit of money becomes more important than the pursuit of any other concept of value, everything else starts to suffer.
The evidence is all around us. Most things are no longer healthy. We no longer pursue quality for the sake of quality, caring for others for the sake of others, or making a better world for the sake of everyone.
We are quickly becoming a nation of vampires and vultures, scrabbling to survive, to get all the money/lifeblood they can, draining society dry of its value.
Businesses should exist to provide and improve upon value to society, not to blindly produce money. Making a fair benefit from the fruit of labors should be a result of improving that value, not the reason for it. It is the quality of that health overall, not the quantity of the most obvious component like profit or money that should be the focus.
Only caring about the blood (money) instead of the body (workers, assets, functioning, and reason for being) will lead to death. Just like the health of a society depends on the health of the majority of it's citizens. The health of a business should depend on the health and fairness of the majority of it's workers (representing the majority of members in society), and the value it gives to society. Ex ) a bread company should first exist to provide the best bread possible to its society, to fairly employ and compensate its workers, to play and compete fairly with other businesses, and to be a healthy contributor to society, to do the best job it can. Profit has to be regulated, not so that the fruit of labors is restricted, but but so that society, and the workers who comprise the majority of it, the companies long term health, and the executives/founders get an appropriate share of the benefit of the fruit of those labors. Society allows a business to operate, not so it can be free to make money or serve it founders/executives but to produce value to society.
Politicians should only exist to represent the people, as members of society (collectively and as individuals in balance).
Their only job and responsibility should be to focus on making the best, correct decisions to improve the quality of life for society and its individual citizens. (not creating the false appearance of popularity and progress). To guarantee focus, Politicians should have to pass both an ethics test, and a standards for good decision making test before they could be nominated.
Salaries should probably be tied to the success of the society, tied to the average pay of the majority of Americans and the poverty level, so politicians have an incentive to improve them.
To have a healthy society and for clear decisions to be made, all corrupting political influences must be eliminated.
Lobbyism must be ended, so that only people are the focus.
All groups with an incentive to influence; those with money, success, or power as well, must be restricted from their freedom to unfairly influence any government decision. No company, political party, wealthy, crony, or powerful person or group should be allowed Any influence beyond the best interests of the citizens of our society.
Corruption has to be limited and monitored for it to end.
The Wealthy and the Successful are only allowed to exist and pursue that success, by Society, for the benefit of Society and All of its members. They only have the earned privilege, not the right to be successful and free, as the needs of society allow. Success should never buy Freedom from responsibility to Society, in fact, as those who have more of a capacity to do so, they should have a even greater responsibility to bear that cost. Everyone is responsible for being a contributing member of society. However, The successful actually have more responsibility to protect and bear the weight of it.
Help should obviously come from those who have it, not those who need it.
Because the majority of society's wealth and success concentrated in the the hands of the successful, only the successful are capable, empowered, and free enough to solve the problems of society. Instead of being left free, to take care of their own, to create their own separate society, and thus ignore our problems, because they can handle it, they should be exposed to those problems first. For our Society to ever be fixed, we must hold the Successful accountable, and re-balance inequity, so that Society can survive and the American Dream restored.
- As a group, the Upper Class can be defined as reaching a level that offers enough freedom, financially and labor-wise, that they are no longer distracted or affected by the requirements of survival, and having to work for it. They can afford to work independently from society, and they are free to pursue the fruit of the labors. Their success should not be restricted, they should never be capped or kept from the fair pursuit of their labors; However.
1. They should never be allowed that pursuit so freely that it is to the disadvantage of others who can not move so freely. They cannot be allowed to live with a different set of rules.
2. Since they are more free to absorb the effects of society, they should be the most held accountable to the effects of Society. Proportionately to their ability and their success.... their taxes, their responsibility, and the fate should be tied to the fate of the Society. They should have to feel a bad economy 1st, instead of shifting it outside of their class. And they should be they 1st ones to make sacrifices. If they are held accountable then they will have the incentive, not just the capacity to be responsible to Society.
Rules must be changed to keep the Upper Class from only taking care of their own.
Their success must be tied to the success of the Middle Class and the fate of the Poor.
If this Tyranny continues to polarize society will suffer.
They must be held Accountable.
The Middle Class and the access to the American Dream is dead or quickly dying for most people. 1 of 2 people in America is now below the poverty level. Wages for the majority of Americans are stagnant since the 1980's and are now looking for the first time in history to become negative.
The Poor are little more than indentured servants and slaves with no real chance of upward mobility. We stopped caring.
Only Companies and the Upper Class are doing well.
The fact is, the only way to fix this is to radically bail out the average person, who is failing through no fault of their own, and is the most productive worker in the world.
Even fixing the rules to be fair, will not reverse the trend quickly enough.
Individuals and Society are only healthy in balance.
We need to focus on cooperation again, before we compete ourselves to death, and the only winner is Greed, and who is standing on top of that hill.
Don't doubt that the Upper Class acts like it is another separate country.
Don't doubt that companies will sell out American value and follow the money to the highest bidder if we continue to give them too much freedom.
Don't doubt that Greed and Selfishness got us into that position.
Don't doubt that the distraction of politics keeps us divided from fixing things instead of cooperating to our success.
We have to face reality.
We have to learn how to talk and accomplish things, with each other, again.
rixar13Feb 6, 2012
I could see no benefit, independent contractor employee template coming for years...
auditortuxFeb 6, 2012
The only real advantage of that is suddenly all the "expenses" that were hidden from employees will be in stark view - how much the employer pays into Social Security/Medicare, the real cost of health insurance (unsubsidized by the employer), etc.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
KANGbowoFeb 6, 2012
Agreed with everything you wrote ,,,,,
partrowFeb 6, 2012
Krugman is not O.K.
rastas11Feb 6, 2012
Krugman would do well to set up a lemonade stand and learn some economics.
fauozFeb 7, 2012
I remember reporters like him saying how bad it was oil prices were going down.
cyberdactylFeb 6, 2012
When Krugman said we didn't spend even close to what we should have in the bailout, I pretty much bury any article by him immediately that appears on digg.
The fact that he keeps getting submitted tells me many out there still have no clue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
partrowFeb 6, 2012
He is submitted methodically by one person, Phil Perspective, who knows that his submission will be instantly promoted to the front page.
Why anyone pays any attention to Krugman is difficult to understand.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
he tells do-nothings that the banks govt and wealthy should pay off their debts
not very difficult
nygenxerFeb 7, 2012
Difficult for you, perhaps.
skyislandFeb 8, 2012
Earth is in danger right now.. Today..
Rebut this if you can because this is what is coming to economies everywhere.
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/gary-housers-rebuttal-realclimates.html
Also after going down column and reading the article consider bookmarking this sight in order to refute denial of global warming and the whole host of false arguments out there.
dan316Feb 6, 2012
There is definitely more room for improvement and the economy isn't much better. And the national debt is just making matters. I wonder at what point will our leadership in Washington decide that the US has accumulated too much debt.?
Dan Annweiler
CEO & Editor of http://emergencysurvivalblog.usComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
partrowFeb 6, 2012
No spam for your website, please.
dan316Feb 6, 2012
No problem...though I don't consider one link "spam" Would understand if I tried putting 100 comments with a link in there. Then it would be spam.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neondistractionFeb 7, 2012
One link is not, but you have posted a link in 20 of your 32 comments. That is spam, and if you keep it up digg will eventually get around to banning you.
dan316Feb 7, 2012
At least this time you were more cordial about it and gave me a valid reason, I will certainly heed your advice. Seeing how I really just started using Digg, though I have been a member for a few months, I was unaware that including a link at the end of a comment was consider ed poor etiquette .
neondistractionFeb 7, 2012
Read up on spam. It's the bane of the internet and it's become really bad on digg lately. They're like telemarketers used to be. Sometimes when I'm bored I like to hurl verbal abuse at them. If it was an honest mistake, I apologize for whatever terrible things I may have said to you.
dan316Feb 7, 2012
No offense taken. Thanks for helping me out.
lordakunaFeb 6, 2012
swag swag
specimen7Feb 6, 2012
You think you know more than my dad? Don't f**kin come then.