Too Poor to Retire and Too Young to Die

[Laura Corin]

Yes, age discrimination is definitely an issue. Perhaps the idea could be to target people 40-ish in the hopes that employers would be more likely to hire them. It seems barring serious accidents, people who perform physical labor do well until their late 30s, and then it seems to be knees, backs, and shoulders that suffer the most. Maybe there's some data on an ideal age, I don't know.

 

But then those retrained workers will be last-in at their new jobs  and will be first laid off.  

 

I don't know what the answer is.  Husband was laid off in his mid-fifties and is now working free-lance and very part time.  He tried to get full-time jobs for several years, but no one would hire him.  One of my brothers tried to retrain in computer programming at about age 50 but couldn't keep up with the young people.  He's now on disability and will probably stay on it until he collects his state retirement pension.

 

I consciously chose a job that I can do for the next fifteen years that isn't too hard, in a growing department within a growing organisation within a growing sector.  I may be bored but I've done all I can to secure our income.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Laura Corin

[Ausmumof3]

But...What do you do with the books when you....need the casket?

 

That is the bigger problem!

If there's an afterlife you can bury me with the books. Who needs a pyramid?

[Ravin]

I'm asking this question purely out of curiosity. What kind of education did you borrow $300K for that has left you where you can't get it paid off and will be taking forgiveness?

Law school, mostly. Less than $10k is from undergrad, which I had Pell grants and GI bill to help pay for.

 

And it's not that I can't get it paid off, but that the work I want to do/am doing (as a public defender) isn't the highest paying in law and the 10 year forgiveness program will take care of it. The forgiveness program I am talking about is specifically for professionals who go into public sector jobs.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ravin

[Ravin]

I'm willing to bet that IBR will be restructured at some point to cap the amount that can be forgiven or increase the payment amounts or the years of payment for higher earning professionals. Otherwise, it's just going to become unsustainable and run the risk of being eliminated altogether. While it was intended to help people with low incomes, the beneficiaries recieving the largest benefits are actually professionals with the largest amount of debt- MDs and JDs. Essentially it runs the risk of dis-incentivizing people to keep their loan balances as low as possible.

But Lucy, as long as it takes those big loan balances to get through school and become professionals, there has to be a way to incentivize doing it despite the loan balances.

 

You assume professionals are "higher earning" and it's somewhat true, but only somewhat. My salary now is above the median, but not by much. The same is true for many MD'd, especially general practitioners, family practice doctors, and pediatricians.

 

You don't get rich doing what I went to law school to do--helping the poor and disadvantaged.

[Ravin]

There are such funds in my state. The completion and sucessful hire rates for those over 50 are apparently quite low. If they finish the retraining, they are usually at a disadvantage in hiring to other new trainees who are younger. Age discrimination in hiring is a huge barrier for older workers, especially ones trying to crack into a new field. Interviewers are younger than them and they tend to assume that hiring someone who will retire in just a few years is a waste of their resources. It's also darn near impossible to enforce the laws banning age discrimination.

 

My father was laid off from his non-physically demanding ordinary office job at the phone company just before 60. He spent a year looking for ANY job and then another year trying to keep up with the state offered course to retrain in something else. He's a smart man but his ability to memorize the information he needed to in order to pass was fairly low. In the end all the retraining really did for him was allow him to extend his unemployment coverage so he could sort of stay afloat until he got early SS and a senior housing assignment at 62. He'd only been with the phone company for 6-7 years before he was laid off and had minimal assets.

 

Another gentleman I know looked 70+ in his 50s because he'd lived a hard life and had worked from the time he got out of the service until there were no more jobs in his industry he could do. Really, at some point, there were just barely any jobs in this state in his old industry (logging/mill work). He lived and, to the best of my knowledge, still lives in his truck. He's a street vendor because he looks so worn out he couldn't get a retail job. Doing that he takes in enough to buy food and gas. He's too proud to accept any help finding housing. People would wonder why he was still needing to work at all- wondering why he wasn't collecting SS- and it was because he was more than a decade younger than he looked. While he was a perfectly nice person, he really wasn't mentally up to retraining. And frankly, I think it's somewhat insulting of our state to ask him to retrain at that age and in that condition.

 

While I am all for retraining people who want to and are up for it, I really don't like living in a world where we can spend money trying to get folks to retrain but not on keeping lifetime laborers from having to live in their trucks when their bodies give out or their jobs vanish before they are retirement age.

Lucy, you just said this guy is too proud to take what help he might be able to get. If he won't apply for subsidized housing, or nutrition assistance, and won't retrain, and won't apply for disability...he has put himself where he's at, not just society, through his choices.

[Ravin]

Let's just say there is a reason I am getting my CPA and opted not to get a JD. The legal market is better now for recent graduates than it was in 2009-2014 though. Law school was also where some folks tried to wait our the recession. Given the fairly limited access that low and moderate income people have to accessing critically needed legal assistance though (such as family law where DV is in play) I am all for making it worthwhile/feasible for people to go to work for legal aid services. One state is now offering a limited license to practice parts of family law without a law degree. Like the legal equivalent of a nurse practitioner/physician's assistance ("mid level" practioners). I think this is going to need to be expanded as the price of law school becomes so prohibitive. The ABA will fight to limit the role of such folks though.

Law school made sense to me because of IBR and the 10 year loan forgiveness program, plus the worst paying attorney position was still going to pay twice what I'd likely be making if I'd stayed in retail. And accounting sounds dreadfully boring to me. ;)

[FaithManor]

I think those trained in a very physically intensive trade have it pretty badly. We have a friend who is a stone mason. His back and knees were really beginning to show the wewr and tear by 40 maybe 42. He is only 50 and getting really busted up doing the work. He needs to retrain for another job, but at this late stage, it is going to be very difficult.

 

MIL was fortunate. She was a pediatric nursing specialist who took advantage of hospital reimbursement to get her master's degree and keep her education very fresh, classes, seminars, conferences, you name it. So when she was ready to give up patient care and slow down a little, she was super qualified to teach in the RN program at a big CC. She glided into the instructor position rather seamlessly, and eventually became department chair. She taught until sixty five. She retired on a modest, but very comfortable income and in good health. I wish it worked out for everyone that way.

 

I began my event planning and custom floral design business as a means to beef up college and retirment savings. But my partner has had health problems and had to retire so while it showed promise, it is not going any farther. One last wedding which I am doing with the help of college boy, and then I am back to square one looking for income options. The quilt store would like me to come back. In truth, it was a great position when I did it that one time to pay our medical deductible when dh hurt himself. But, they can only afford to pay minimum wage for a very skilled labor job, often leaving me to run the place single handed, handle the bank and run inventory counts plus re ordering, and the way they schedule their employees is crazy. I have a half hour drive each direction and one day mightbwork ten hours, and the next only two. It is not worth an hour of driving to work two minimum wage hours.

 

Not sure yet what the solution will be, but I may go to my favorite florist and show her some of my designs. One of her best people is quitting due to health issues so maybe I could catch on there for more than minimum wage. It is half the distance of the quilt shop.

[Danestress]

Let One state is now offering a limited license to practice parts of family law without a law degree. Like the legal equivalent of a nurse practitioner/physician's assistance ("mid level" practioners). I think this is going to need to be expanded as the price of law school becomes so prohibitive. The ABA will fight to limit the role of such folks though.

Of course it will. The ABA called upon states to create such programs and supports them. But there will inevitably some push and pull over the boundaries of services, as has been the case with nurse practitioners and physicians assistants.

[Ravin]

Of course it will. The ABA called upon states to create such programs and supports them. But there will inevitably some push and pull over the boundaries of services, as has been the case with nurse practitioners and physicians assistants.

I see it in tribal law practice, where "lay advocates" have practiced for decades. A number of tribes in the process of expanding their criminal jurisdiction under the Violence Against Women Act (which allows tribes to try non-Indians for domestic violence crimes) are narrowing the scope of practice for advocates, out of concern that Federal courts would not accept (experienced, knowledgable) non-J.D. legal representation as sufficient under VAWA jurisdiction. Often where a tribe has a Bar Association, there is push-and-pull about this stuff between attorneys and advocates in the Bar Association, too.

 

If states move this direction, likely some tribes will pidgeonhole advocates more as something equivalent to state practice is more likely to hold up under Federal scrutiny.

 

You see the same shift/push/pull going on in dentistry, too.

[Danestress]

I see it in tribal law practice, where "lay advocates" have practiced for decades. A number of tribes in the process of expanding their criminal jurisdiction under the Violence Against Women Act (which allows tribes to try non-Indians for domestic violence crimes) are narrowing the scope of practice for advocates, out of concern that Federal courts would not accept (experienced, knowledgable) non-J.D. legal representation as sufficient under VAWA jurisdiction. Often where a tribe has a Bar Association, there is push-and-pull about this stuff between attorneys and advocates in the Bar Association, too.

 

If states move this direction, likely some tribes will pidgeonhole advocates more as something equivalent to state practice is more likely to hold up under Federal scrutiny.

 

You see the same shift/push/pull going on in dentistry, too.

This is something about which I know very little. Are you saying that lay advocates have defended alleged perpetrators of domestic violence? I can certainly see where this would become an issue when an indigent defendant is convicted of a crime but was not provided 'effective' legal defense, which traditionally has meant, at the very least, provision of defense by a licensed attorney.

 

The state has no obligation to provide people with free legal services in family law matters. So allowing people to choose to save money by using the services of a qualified professional with a limited license just provides a choice for them. But when someone is charged with a crime, the state is required to provide legal defense to the indigent, and it's very troubling that lay advocates would be the only option provided. Am I misunderstanding this?

[Danestress]

Double posted

Edited February 7, 2016 by Danestress

[LucyStoner]

Of course it will. The ABA called upon states to create such programs and supports them. But there will inevitably some push and pull over the boundaries of services, as has been the case with nurse practitioners and physicians assistants.

I saw how insufficent the legal access for low income people in fraught family law situations are so I was curious about it and looked up the requirement. It's a bachelors degree plus 45 credits of specific law classes and passing an exam. Or (for people already working as experienced paralegals) having been in field for 10 years and taking a series of family law classes. These practitioners can not negotiate for a client or represent them in court. I'm not really clear how that is any different than a paralegal truthfully. What a low income DV victim needs is someone who can stand up for them in some fairly simple court situations, like laying out the facts to a commissioner in a restraining order petition. Most of the family law attorneys I know say they learned their job on the job and not in 3 years of law school. Some lawyers have advocated for shortening law school and replacing 1-2 years of it with internship placements.

Edited February 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[creekland]

You assume professionals are "higher earning" and it's somewhat true, but only somewhat. My salary now is above the median, but not by much. The same is true for many MD'd, especially general practitioners, family practice doctors, and pediatricians.

 

You don't get rich doing what I went to law school to do--helping the poor and disadvantaged.

 

I admire what you are doing.  Middle son loves working in underserved places and hopes to do similarly (at least part of the time) once he has his MD.  This is one huge reason I'm hoping he can get in the MSTP program.  That program pays for med school while a student is also getting a PhD.  He'd have no loans and could have more freedom with his choices afterward.  He could continue in research if he liked and/or work in more underserved communities.  He wouldn't need a super high income to pay off med school loans.  I wish that were true for all graduating physicians.

[LucyStoner]

But Lucy, as long as it takes those big loan balances to get through school and become professionals, there has to be a way to incentivize doing it despite the loan balances.

 

You assume professionals are "higher earning" and it's somewhat true, but only somewhat. My salary now is above the median, but not by much. The same is true for many MD'd, especially general practitioners, family practice doctors, and pediatricians.

 

You don't get rich doing what I went to law school to do--helping the poor and disadvantaged.

I don't assume JDs are high income. Statistically most new grads are not and a fair number of them are not able to find employment which requires passing the bar.

 

2017 is the first time public interest income based repayments will be eligible to be forgiven. That's the option which forgives loans after 10 years/ 120 eligible payments rather than 20 years. You can count on some amount of legislative despair over the cost.

 

IBR is based on net income after ALL payroll deductions including retirement savings and various other optional deductions and then subtracting 150% of FPL for family size.

 

You can make $200k and only be paying a *tiny* fraction of your loans using that metric with savvy. Which is why top tier professional schools are educating their students about IBR.

 

Practicing medicine at a large city hospital (most are non-profits) is not the same thing as committing to work for a free clinic in an area where it is hard to get medical care. I have friends doing that who make far more than private family practice doctors yet the hospital employee making $225k will pay the same percent of his or her income for 10 years while the family practice doctor will pay for 20 years because he's self employed. I'm all for IBR with 10 year discharge for people with modest incomes (and by that I mean fairly high for HCOL areas) working in the public interest but believe me, that's not what this program is actually doing for many folks.

 

It subsidizes people who took the largest loans and borrowed the most far more than people who chose a cheaper state school or worked PT or won scholarships. If you know your loans will be forgiven WHY not over borrow or borrow more than you need and use the funds for a house downpayment or car? I know people who have done just that. Given the rip off prices of many bottom tier or unranked law schools, this may not even lead to subsidizing folks who are able to stay in the legal field- there's fairly stiff competition here for the $65K nonprofit law jobs and they don't go to new grads unless their school is a good one. Many law grads who spend too much on such a school will not pass the bar or get hired. It may lead to tax payers covering the law school education of someone who goes on to work in a different field. So it's NOT necessarily providing better access to lawyers. In some cases it is enriching low quality schools with low bar passage and post grad employment rates.

 

I prepare taxes for people using this program so I have a close look at the incomes of some people using it plus I've studied it closely- you erroneously assume that my statements are based on uninformed assumptions.

 

I think IBR and public benefit forgiveness is a great idea. I'm not at all opposed to it but as it is, there are loopholes one can drive a semitruck through. I see the math and expect that we will see changes- requirements that higher income people pay for 20 years instead of 10 or that payments are higher for high income folks. I can't say that's a bad thing because it's not like the public will be able to afford it as is. It was not passed with the intention to pay off most of a $300k loan balance for someone making well into the six figures. That's just the cold hard truth.

 

If the aim is to make professional school accessible for low income students and expand the access to the services those professionals provide, there are ways to structure it which do not incentivize over borrowing or line the pockets of poor quality schools or pay off the loans of affluent people.

Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Lucy, you just said this guy is too proud to take what help he might be able to get. If he won't apply for subsidized housing, or nutrition assistance, and won't retrain, and won't apply for disability...he has put himself where he's at, not just society, through his choices.

You have literally zero idea what the conditions are like in those options here or his needs or why he decided (and rationally so) that his truck is a better option. Even we disagree, he still gets to self determine what is best for him.

 

He made too much to qualify for food stamps because he has no housing costs- homeless people are not statutorily eligible like low income seniors are. He was not eligible for disability because he could work, just not in the labor jobs he was accustomed to. Retail work would be fine but retails stores don't hire people who look like him.

 

I've known this man for a long time. Call me crazy but I think a vet who did hard labor many can not for 20+ years deserves his full SS payments earlier than someone with a non-physically demanding job. Not all jobs take the same toll on one's body.

 

If you want to help the poor, as you claim, you could try understanding and compassion rather than callous "it's his fault" judgement. I'm sorry if I sound a bit cranky but I've known and been friendly with him a long time and am a bit protective of my friends in his shoes. He's a good man who was in an untenable situation. I won't share the details of why he opted out of the low income housing system but I will say that I am familiar enough to understand the whys of that decision where we live and where he was offered shelter.

Edited February 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Law school made sense to me because of IBR and the 10 year loan forgiveness program, plus the worst paying attorney position was still going to pay twice what I'd likely be making if I'd stayed in retail. And accounting sounds dreadfully boring to me. ;)

Here's thing- family and homeless services nonprofits are my field. They've been my field for a long time. They need accounting and management services just like any other organization. I can make the most impact for the smallest educational cost and have the most flexibility to meet the needs of my special needs child and extended family caregiving this way. The cost of my education is less than a 10th of what many people pay for three years of law school. Also, had I gone to law school when that was my goal, I would have graduated into the height of the recession. I am friends with many who did graduate about that time. It was brutal and will statistically take them more than a decade to catch up with earlier and later grads.

 

I probably will not be eligible for IBR because my loan balance will be very modest and because I am more likely to remain self employed or perhaps working for a private firm that specializes in the charitable sector than to work as an employee of a nonprofit again. While I support IBR, I personally would not be comfortable taking on more debt I could pay off on my own. In part because I think the laws will change and be less advantageous to people in my situation and in part because I am very conservative about what I am willing to spend. I grew up very poor and that colors my mindset about money and future stability.

Edited February 7, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ravin]

This is something about which I know very little. Are you saying that lay advocates have defended alleged perpetrators of domestic violence? I can certainly see where this would become an issue when an indigent defendant is convicted of a crime but was not provided 'effective' legal defense, which traditionally has meant, at the very least, provision of defense by a licensed attorney.

 

The state has no obligation to provide people with free legal services in family law matters. So allowing people to choose to save money by using the services of a qualified professional with a limited license just provides a choice for them. But when someone is charged with a crime, the state is required to provide legal defense to the indigent, and it's very troubling that lay advocates would be the only option provided. Am I misunderstanding this?

In tribal courts that have not accepted VAWA or Major Crimes jurisdiction, only tribe members can be charged criminally for DV or any other crime, and the crimes are all limited to misdemeanor level (with more serious crimes picked up for Federal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act).

 

The basic principles of indigenous national sovereignty mean that they can try their own as they see fit, and in many tribal courts lay advocates do represent people in need of indigent defense (and are in private practice as well). There is Federal law which requires tribes to adhere to the same basic protection of rights in their courts as State and Federal courts must under the Constitution. Lay advocates usually have to be members of Federally recognized tribes, often they must be members of the tribe in whose courts they practice. The assumption is that cultural knowledge is held which is as useful as general law knowledge within the context of the tribal court.

 

In family courts some tribes not only utilize lay advocates, but disallow attorneys entirely.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ravin

[MotherGoose]

You have literally zero idea what the conditions are like in those options here or his needs or why he decided (and rationally so) that his truck is a better option. Even we disagree, he still gets to self determine what is best for him.

 

He made too much to qualify for food stamps because he has no housing costs- homeless people are not statutorily eligible like low income seniors are. He was not eligible for disability because he could work, just not in the labor jobs he was accustomed to. Retail work would be fine but retails stores don't hire people who look like him.

 

I've known this man for a long time. Call me crazy but I think a vet who did hard labor many can not for 20+ years deserves his full SS payments earlier than someone with a non-physically demanding job. Not all jobs take the same toll on one's body.

 

If you want to help the poor, as you claim, you could try understanding and compassion rather than callous "it's his fault" judgement. I'm sorry if I sound a bit cranky but I've known and been friendly with him a long time and am a bit protective of my friends in his shoes. He's a good man who was in an untenable situation. I won't share the details of why he opted out of the low income housing system but I will say that I am familiar enough to understand the whys of that decision where we live and where he was offered shelter.

Could he qualify for Social security disability then? I'm thankful that my husband has been able to move into management of a physically demanding job so he's able to continue to work. My city is developing a program to, instead of arresting the "chronically homeless," not saying your friend is one of these but folks who are frequently arrested, visit the ER, etc, and are well known to police for petty crimes, and are generally elderly and/or disabled, to work with them to get them the services they need and to which they are entitled. As a former social worker, I think this is a much better solution for everyone, and it saves money: apparently the city had spent 1 million dollars or more taking care of these folks by default (ER, jail, etc.) and per year, and decide it would be cheaper, kinder, and just better to get them services In a more intensive way than the usual. More hand holding, which is what they need. Some will choose to refuse that too, I'm sure.

[Wheres Toto]

I think we've been very lucky.  Dh is a analytical pharmaceutical chemist.  He gets head-hunter calls all the time and when he decided to give up his own company, was able to find a very good job last year at 59 years old.  Many of the management positions in pharmaceuticals are older, the years of experience are considered desirable and its not physically taxing.

 

I'm an executive assistant.  Not physically taxing except on my back and wrists if the set-up isn't good (which mine currently isn't).    One of my co-workers is in her mid 60's (although has been there for many many years) and my mother was hired for similar work in her 60's.

[EmseB]

 

You can make $200k and only be paying a *tiny* fraction of your loans using that metric with savvy. Which is why top tier professional schools are educating their students about IBR.

 

Practicing medicine at a large city hospital (most are non-profits) is not the same thing as committing to work for a free clinic in an area where it is hard to get medical care. I have friends doing that who make far more than private family practice doctors yet the hospital employee making $225k will pay the same percent of his or her income for 10 years while the family practice doctor will pay for 20 years because he's self employed. I'm all for IBR with 10 year discharge for people with modest incomes (and by that I mean fairly high for HCOL areas) working in the public interest but believe me, that's not what this program is actually doing for many folks.

 

It subsidizes people who took the largest loans and borrowed the most far more that people who chose a cheaper state school or worked PT or won scholarships. If you know your loans will be forgiven WHY not over borrow or borrow more than you need and use the funds for a house downpayment or car? I know people who have done just that. Given the rip off prices of many bottom tier or unranked law schools, this may not even lead to subsidizing folks who are able to stay in the legal field- there's competition here for the $65K nonprofit law jobs. Many law grads who spend too much on such a school will not pass the bar or get hired. It may lead to tax payers covering the law school education of someone who goes on to work in a different field. So it's NOT necessarily providing better access to lawyers. In some cases it is mainly enriching low quality schools with low bar passage and post grad employment rates.

 

 

 

So, I'm going to do some googling, but what you're saying is that people are taking out loans in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars knowing they won't ever have to pay them back in full?  Under the guise of serving the poor, but not really having to?  Like going in knowing they will never, ever be capable of paying back the loan in the allotted time and just expecting the lender to eat it because they have to?  And schools are advertising this to people, because why wouldn't they?

 

I mean, it sounds sort of like Teach for America, except letting the teachers pick to work at a high-tuition private school because it happens to be non-profit.

[MotherGoose]

I had $5 K of my student loans for a masters in social work forgiven after working 5 years as a social worker for a state agency serving needy children. I think situations like mine were the original intent of the program. I also only had about 10 K of loans, or maybe less, can't remember exactly. Anyway I dislike student loans, regardless, but think it's perhaps a bit financially risky to take on more loans than will equal your potential salary for many years. If I came out with 10k in loans, at least I was making $25k in salary and could see an end in sight to the payments.

 

Of course you all are talking about irresponsible accumulation of debt and abusing this program, in my opinion.

Edited February 8, 2016 by MotherGoose

[Frances]

So, I'm going to do some googling, but what you're saying is that people are taking out loans in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars knowing they won't ever have to pay them back in full? Under the guise of serving the poor, but not really having to? Like going in knowing they will never, ever be capable of paying back the loan in the allotted time and just expecting the lender to eat it because they have to? And schools are advertising this to people, because why wouldn't they?

 

I mean, it sounds sort of like Teach for America, except letting the teachers pick to work at a high-tuition private school because it happens to be non-profit.

It's not the lender eating it, it's all of us, as this is a federal program. I know the NY Times had an article about this within the last few months. The program definitely does not seem sustainable, as students are allowed to borrow well beyond the cost of tuition and depending on the amount of their income based repayments, may ultimately pay little beyond interest before the debt is forgiven.

[LucyStoner]

So, I'm going to do some googling, but what you're saying is that people are taking out loans in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars knowing they won't ever have to pay them back in full? Under the guise of serving the poor, but not really having to? Like going in knowing they will never, ever be capable of paying back the loan in the allotted time and just expecting the lender to eat it because they have to? And schools are advertising this to people, because why wouldn't they?

 

I mean, it sounds sort of like Teach for America, except letting the teachers pick to work at a high-tuition private school because it happens to be non-profit.

It's a classic economic dilemma of unintended consequences to a well meaning, well intentioned program.

 

While many people who are using this program ARE low or moderate income and working in public service, it covers some high income professionals with six figure plus debt who one wouldn't generally associate with working in public services. It also DOESN'T cover some people who are working in public service but who opted for less expensive degree options or are self employed.

 

Covered: highly paid doctors at public or non-profit hospitals.

 

Not covered: moderately paid self employed attorney who takes a lot of pro bono DV law cases. Or more moderately compensated general practitioner doctor or PA who goes to work for a private practice which accepts low income patients.

 

Covered: Government attorneys making fairly high salaries. Yes, these salaries are less than some lawyers manage to earn in the private sector. Still, they also earn a lot more than many lawyers earn in the private sector. More so if you can figure on IBR and decent benefits.

 

Not covered: moderately paid (insert any professional) who worked through school, chose less expensive options while in school, secured some scholarships and conscientiously minimized their loan debt. Because if you make enough that the standard 10 year repayment plan on a low amount of loans is affordable to you there is nothing to forgive. Those people will generally need to pay their loans in full.

 

The larger your qualifying loan balances at graduation, the more likely you will qualify. It's income based repayment without (if I recall correctly) asset testing. There's even been some discussion of affluent families opting to gift the money they would have kicked in for professional school because loans taken on may be very easy to handle using this system carefully.

 

When people can find a loophole, they will find a loophole.

 

The issue I am raising is that without some changes, the program runs the risk of being repealed or changed to be much less generous. Then the people who ACTUALLY need it and are clearly taking a pay cut to work in public service are less likely to be able to get it. Hopefully any reforms will be able to be done in such a way that the intended benefit is maintained and the loopholes are closed.

Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ravin]

You have literally zero idea what the conditions are like in those options here or his needs or why he decided (and rationally so) that his truck is a better option. Even we disagree, he still gets to self determine what is best for him.

 

He made too much to qualify for food stamps because he has no housing costs- homeless people are not statutorily eligible like low income seniors are. He was not eligible for disability because he could work, just not in the labor jobs he was accustomed to. Retail work would be fine but retails stores don't hire people who look like him.

 

I've known this man for a long time. Call me crazy but I think a vet who did hard labor many can not for 20+ years deserves his full SS payments earlier than someone with a non-physically demanding job. Not all jobs take the same toll on one's body.

 

If you want to help the poor, as you claim, you could try understanding and compassion rather than callous "it's his fault" judgement. I'm sorry if I sound a bit cranky but I've known and been friendly with him a long time and am a bit protective of my friends in his shoes. He's a good man who was in an untenable situation. I won't share the details of why he opted out of the low income housing system but I will say that I am familiar enough to understand the whys of that decision where we live and where he was offered shelter.

I didn't say it was his fault. I'm saying his current position is partly a result of his choices, just as the position of the lady in the OP was.

 

I also don't think veteran status has anything to do with it, unless there is a service related disability at play. Serving your country honorably for a typical enlistment tour should not put you at a disadvantage in other areas of life. It also should be put in perspective to the rest of life.

 

I picked up on your phrasing about him being too proud to accept help. That was how you put it, not me.

[LucyStoner]

It's not the lender eating it, it's all of us, as this is a federal program. I know the NY Times had an article about this within the last few months. The program definitely does not seem sustainable, as students are allowed to borrow well beyond the cost of tuition and depending on the amount of their income based repayments, may ultimately pay little beyond interest before the debt is forgiven.

That was a good article. Remember, while undergrad loans are capped, graduate school loans are not. Meaning it benefits more professional school graduates and in a larger way than it does modest means folks with a B.A. It's really going to be an issue. It was truly not intended to allow people to write themselves a blank check for costly degrees/over-borrowing with low earning potential.

[LucyStoner]

I didn't say it was his fault. I'm saying his current position is partly a result of his choices, just as the position of the lady in the OP was.

 

I also don't think veteran status has anything to do with it, unless there is a service related disability at play. Serving your country honorably for a typical enlistment tour should not put you at a disadvantage in other areas of life. It also should be put in perspective to the rest of life.

 

I picked up on your phrasing about him being too proud to accept help. That was how you put it, not me.

How exactly is it not his at least partally his fault if due to his choices? Again, you are not aware of the landscape in which his choices were made.

 

You judged the woman in the article because you have 1/10th her level of credit card debt. You judged the homeless man I mentioned without full information.

 

Personally I have zero credit card debt but I certainly don't judge you for having $5000 (or her for having $50K). I don't have cc debt because for most of my adult life I have been fortunate enough not to have to carry any significant amount for any significant amount of time- it's not any indication of my moral fiber. I can easily see how one might rack up debt due to a variety of reasons. Being poor is expensive.

 

In my experience one can not meaningfully help people they judge so harshly.

Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[EmseB]

That was a good article. Remember, while undergrad loans are capped, graduate school loans are not. Meaning it benefits more professional school graduates and in a larger way than it does modest means folks with a B.A. It's really going to be an issue. It was truly not intended to allow people to write themselves a blank check for costly degrees/over-borrowing with low earning potential.

 

I guess maybe I feel out of touch or something.  I just finished my Bachelor's and have been sort of investigating Master's programs so I'm not totally unaware of educational costs, but I can't figure out how/why anyone would necessarily need an education that costs $100's of thousands other than maybe a doctor.  I mean, from my cursory lookings around, one can become a lawyer for less than that, right?  I sort of understand it if you are leveraging the debt to get a shot at working at a high powered, high paying firm, but even then it seems like such a gamble.

 

Why not go to a quality mid-tier school for less and save the $$$?  A law school I was looking at had a decent regional reputation, cost about $30k per year, and had an 80% employment and bar passage.  Is that horrible?

 

Back to the subject at hand, I wouldn't ever be in a position to retire with $300k of debt out of college (unless it was a home building equity), but I couldn't see myself asking someone else to take on that cost either.  That would be tough.

[Ravin]

I saw how insufficent the legal access for low income people in fraught family law situations are so I was curious about it and looked up the requirement. It's a bachelors degree plus 45 credits of specific law classes and passing an exam. Or (for people already working as experienced paralegals) having been in field for 10 years and taking a series of family law classes. These practitioners can not negotiate for a client or represent them in court. I'm not really clear how that is any different than a paralegal truthfully. What a low income DV victim needs is someone who can stand up for them in some fairly simple court situations, like laying out the facts to a commissioner in a restraining order petition. Most of the family law attorneys I know say they learned their job on the job and not in 3 years of law school. Some lawyers have advocated for shortening law school and replacing 1-2 years of it with internship placements.

Keep in mind, that unrepresented people often aren't at a terribly imbalanced position in family court because the other party isn't represented either. Also, judges in those courts are used to it and will often walk pro see parties through what information/evidence they need to present. Often, help filling out the paperwork properly and some coaching ahead of the hearing can make a big difference even without full representation.

[Frances]

I guess maybe I feel out of touch or something. I just finished my Bachelor's and have been sort of investigating Master's programs so I'm not totally unaware of educational costs, but I can't figure out how/why anyone would necessarily need an education that costs $100's of thousands other than maybe a doctor. I mean, from my cursory lookings around, one can become a lawyer for less than that, right? I sort of understand it if you are leveraging the debt to get a shot at working at a high powered, high paying firm, but even then it seems like such a gamble.

 

Why not go to a quality mid-tier school for less and save the $$$? A law school I was looking at had a decent regional reputation, cost about $30k per year, and had an 80% employment and bar passage. Is that horrible?

 

Back to the subject at hand, I wouldn't ever be in a position to retire with $300k of debt out of college (unless it was a home building equity), but I couldn't see myself asking someone else to take on that cost either. That would be tough.

Law schools or medical schools that cost $50k per year are not uncommon. Even the state medical school in my state is more than that. I think the bigger problem with the loan forgiveness program discussed here is that there is no cap for graduate students, so they can basically borrow as much as they want for living expenses in addition to tuition and fees. That is how the debts amounts become so large.

[LucyStoner]

I guess maybe I feel out of touch or something. I just finished my Bachelor's and have been sort of investigating Master's programs so I'm not totally unaware of educational costs, but I can't figure out how/why anyone would necessarily need an education that costs $100's of thousands other than maybe a doctor. I mean, from my cursory lookings around, one can become a lawyer for less than that, right? I sort of understand it if you are leveraging the debt to get a shot at working at a high powered, high paying firm, but even then it seems like such a gamble.

 

Why not go to a quality mid-tier school for less and save the $$$? A law school I was looking at had a decent regional reputation, cost about $30k per year, and had an 80% employment and bar passage. Is that horrible?

 

Back to the subject at hand, I wouldn't ever be in a position to retire with $300k of debt out of college (unless it was a home building equity), but I couldn't see myself asking someone else to take on that cost either. That would be tough.

A fair number of advanced degrees besides MDs have average graduate or professional school debt loads which run into the six figures.

 

The most expensive law schools in the country run over $200k for the full 3 year program once living expenses are factored in. The interesting thing is that some of the most expensive law schools in the country are the big top tier names where you will generally be able to earn it back BUT some of them are the bottom of the barrel schools with low bar passage rates and low employment rates. Frankly, I think more oversight is needed of such schools, some of which are for profit endeavors.

 

When evaluating employment rates post graduation, you need to look at the figures on their legally required disclosure or from an independent source and not the marketing materials, Schools with less than stellar numbers have long worked to carefully inflate their numbers by rolling FT, PT, law job and non-law jobs into one bundle. Some even hired their own graduates for a short time in that window to inflate their numbers. That loophole has been closed but you still have to look carefully. 80% employment in a job that requires bar admission is great. But it might not be as great as that when broken out more carefully.

Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ravin]

I don't assume JDs are high income. Statistically most new grads are not and a fair number of them are not able to find employment which requires passing the bar.

 

2017 is the first time public interest income based repayments will be eligible to be forgiven. That's the option which forgives loans after 10 years/ 120 eligible payments rather than 20 years. You can count on some amount of legislative despair over the cost.

 

IBR is based on net income after ALL payroll deductions including retirement savings and various other optional deductions and then subtracting 150% of FPL for family size.

 

You can make $200k and only be paying a *tiny* fraction of your loans using that metric with savvy. Which is why top tier professional schools are educating their students about IBR.

 

Practicing medicine at a large city hospital (most are non-profits) is not the same thing as committing to work for a free clinic in an area where it is hard to get medical care. I have friends doing that who make far more than private family practice doctors yet the hospital employee making $225k will pay the same percent of his or her income for 10 years while the family practice doctor will pay for 20 years because he's self employed. I'm all for IBR with 10 year discharge for people with modest incomes (and by that I mean fairly high for HCOL areas) working in the public interest but believe me, that's not what this program is actually doing for many folks.

 

It subsidizes people who took the largest loans and borrowed the most far more than people who chose a cheaper state school or worked PT or won scholarships. If you know your loans will be forgiven WHY not over borrow or borrow more than you need and use the funds for a house downpayment or car? I know people who have done just that. Given the rip off prices of many bottom tier or unranked law schools, this may not even lead to subsidizing folks who are able to stay in the legal field- there's fairly stiff competition here for the $65K nonprofit law jobs and they don't go to new grads unless their school is a good one. Many law grads who spend too much on such a school will not pass the bar or get hired. It may lead to tax payers covering the law school education of someone who goes on to work in a different field. So it's NOT necessarily providing better access to lawyers. In some cases it is enriching low quality schools with low bar passage and post grad employment rates.

 

I prepare taxes for people using this program so I have a close look at the incomes of some people using it plus I've studied it closely- you erroneously assume that my statements are based on uninformed assumptions.

 

I think IBR and public benefit forgiveness is a great idea. I'm not at all opposed to it but as it is, there are loopholes one can drive a semitruck through. I see the math and expect that we will see changes- requirements that higher income people pay for 20 years instead of 10 or that payments are higher for high income folks. I can't say that's a bad thing because it's not like the public will be able to afford it as is. It was not passed with the intention to pay off most of a $300k loan balance for someone making well into the six figures. That's just the cold hard truth.

 

If the aim is to make professional school accessible for low income students and expand the access to the services those professionals provide, there are ways to structure it which do not incentivize over borrowing or line the pockets of poor quality schools or pay off the loans of affluent people.

I went to a good quality state school. My loans are so high because I took 4 years rather than three (because homeschooling) so I could take a lower course load, and I took increases to pay for fripperous things like quality child care and extensive repairs to our junky vehicles. Meanwhile, we ate on food stamps and relied on medicaid for health insurance.

 

I also maximized my clinics and externship for practical experience (my school recently got an award for how good it's practical experience courses are) and got a certificate for concentration in a specific area of law (Indian Law).

 

And then I worked at Walmart last summer while studying for the bar and job hunting, and was willing to take a job 4 hours from home and 90 minutes from possible future housing for my family.

 

They were so desperate, they were willing to hire me at an attorney salary to basically work as a clerk for 10 months before I can be admitted in the jurisdiction and do the job I'm needed for (meanwhile working with and learning from a lay advocate who is very good at what she does).

Edited February 8, 2016 by Ravin

[Ravin]

Here's thing- family and homeless services nonprofits are my field. They've been my field for a long time. They need accounting and management services just like any other organization. I can make the most impact for the smallest educational cost and have the most flexibility to meet the needs of my special needs child and extended family caregiving this way. The cost of my education is less than a 10th of what many people pay for three years of law school. Also, had I gone to law school when that was my goal, I would have graduated into the height of the recession. I am friends with many who did graduate about that time. It was brutal and will statistically take them more than a decade to catch up with earlier and later grads.

 

I probably will not be eligible for IBR because my loan balance will be very modest and because I am more likely to remain self employed or perhaps working for a private firm that specializes in the charitable sector than to work as an employee of a nonprofit again. While I support IBR, I personally would not be comfortable taking on more debt I could pay off on my own. In part because I think the laws will change and be less advantageous to people in my situation and in part because I am very conservative about what I am willing to spend. I grew up very poor and that colors my mindset about money and future stability.

Oh, I think your choices are entirely rational and good ones. I would simply not have the self discipline to deal with how nails-on-chalkboard torturously boring I would find accounting.

 

Since I think the debt loads for higher education are a moral injustice in our society in the first place, I have no moral qualms whatsoever about relying on a loan forgiveness program to take care of them. Before law school, I was working hourly at Walmart and they didn't see me as "management potential." I had zero way of paying of my small number of undergrad loans and my husband decided to get out of the restaurant industry and major in English. I started school as we were looking for the light at the end of the tunnel as far as the recession went.

 

I do not think the loan forgiveness program is going anywhere. If anything, it's likely to be expanded as student loan debt is one of the major things dragging down the middle class (along with flat wages).

[Ravin]

So, I'm going to do some googling, but what you're saying is that people are taking out loans in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars knowing they won't ever have to pay them back in full? Under the guise of serving the poor, but not really having to? Like going in knowing they will never, ever be capable of paying back the loan in the allotted time and just expecting the lender to eat it because they have to? And schools are advertising this to people, because why wouldn't they?

 

I mean, it sounds sort of like Teach for America, except letting the teachers pick to work at a high-tuition private school because it happens to be non-profit.

The law positions covered include prosecutor, public defender, and community legal services positions.

 

IBR does go up with increases in income, it's set at a percentage which is adjusted annually. Ten years of working full time in the fields above, while making payments on one of the income based or income contingent repayment plans, and you can apply for loan forgiveness.

 

The loan forgiveness program was 100% why it made rational sense for me to go to law school.

[Ravin]

How exactly is it not his at least partally his fault if due to his choices? Again, you are not aware of the landscape in which his choices were made.

 

You judged the woman in the article because you have 1/10th her level of credit card debt. You judged the homeless man I mentioned without full information.

 

Personally I have zero credit card debt but I certainly don't judge you for having $5000 (or her for having $50K). I don't have cc debt because for most of my adult life I have been fortunate enough not to have to carry any significant amount for any significant amount of time- it's not any indication of my moral fiber. I can easily see how one might rack up debt due to a variety of reasons. Being poor is expensive.

 

In my experience one can not meaningfully help people they judge so harshly.

Saying the position a person finds them self in is in part due to their life choices is not "judging" them. I have no idea where you are getting that from. Recognizing that their is an interaction between individual choices and societal forces does not mean one is judging the individual for their choices.

 

In my experience, you can't actually help someone who refuses help. You can try, and the help should be there, but you can't force it on them. Even court ordering someone to get help is nothing more than a form of hand-holding. If they don't or can't take advantage of the services offered or ordered upon them, it's not going to help them going forward the way it's meant to.

 

Dealing with policymaking, you need to look at the statistics and big picture. Dealing with a flesh and blood individual human, you need to deal with that person, not the statistics.

[ktgrok]

My husband ended up with just over 100K in student loan debt. That's not taking anything extra for living expenses...he was woking full time while going to school. He went to a private technical school, ITT Tech, because it was the only place that offered his degree within driving distance. He does make a good living now, but the payments are HARD. He recently got a raise, which boosted his salary a few thousand a year but doubled his student loan payments. He/we now pay $800 a month in student loans. Our mortgage (with insurance and taxes included) is $1,000 a month, so it's almost a second mortgage. And because he had to take out private loans for some of it (he'd maxed out the public loans) the interest rates on some of them are startlingly high. It's a constant stress. He'd be a different person if he didn't have to live with that over his head. It informs every decision we make, to have that kind of debt. We don't have car payments, we don't carry much credit card debt, but that student loan debt will haunt us for decades to come. 

[Tsuga]

That was a good article. Remember, while undergrad loans are capped, graduate school loans are not. Meaning it benefits more professional school graduates and in a larger way than it does modest means folks with a B.A. It's really going to be an issue. It was truly not intended to allow people to write themselves a blank check for costly degrees/over-borrowing with low earning potential.

 

I disagree: I think to some extent the purpose was to encourage people to get degrees in high-potential fields like medicine and law, which cost a lot, and allowing them to use public service to forgive their debt. You can't forgive all the debt, only the relevant debt.

 

It's not about writing a blank check for a costly degree, but to go ahead and invest eight years in your education so you can be well-prepared as a lawyer or doctor or engineer and be able to work in the public sector.

 

No, it shouldn't pay for the preceding degree in an unrelated field, but it should pay for the full cost of an education. Hell, most countries pay for that for everyone at least to SOME extent. I think the idea that you could serve the poor for 10 years, and have to take out an education that costs more than a down payment, or heck, in some cases, more than a house, like for a specialist, and we say "Sorry you shouldn't have studied that if you couldn't pay it off" appalling.

[LucyStoner]

I guess maybe I feel out of touch or something. I just finished my Bachelor's and have been sort of investigating Master's programs so I'm not totally unaware of educational costs, but I can't figure out how/why anyone would necessarily need an education that costs $100's of thousands other than maybe a doctor. I mean, from my cursory lookings around, one can become a lawyer for less than that, right? I sort of understand it if you are leveraging the debt to get a shot at working at a high powered, high paying firm, but even then it seems like such a gamble.

 

Why not go to a quality mid-tier school for less and save the $$$? A law school I was looking at had a decent regional reputation, cost about $30k per year, and had an 80% employment and bar passage. Is that horrible?

 

Back to the subject at hand, I wouldn't ever be in a position to retire with $300k of debt out of college (unless it was a home building equity), but I couldn't see myself asking someone else to take on that cost either. That would be tough.

The other thing is that non-traditional law students are more likely to be placebound or need to enroll in a 4 year PT program. There are many places with only one or two law schools. There's even a state with zero law schools.

 

The choices in my area are both fairly costly, though the more highly ranked school is cheaper because it's the state university. If I lived in a state where in-state tuition was $15k a year instead of north of $25k, that would perhaps change my own educational decision. Off and on, I've given a lot of thought to either special education law or family law focusing on DV victims and people in difficult family law situations who can't afford a lawyer but decided the price tag for law school is too high here. We have two sons and a niece and nephew who depend on us and my husband's earning potential in this area is higher than other areas so I just don't think moving is in the cards for my family. This is our home and there is value in that for us. What I am saying is that while there may be cheaper law schools, some people will find them impractical to attend. So I understand why people so often end up with high loan burdens post graduation.

[LucyStoner]

I disagree: I think to some extent the purpose was to encourage people to get degrees in high-potential fields like medicine and law, which cost a lot, and allowing them to use public service to forgive their debt. You can't forgive all the debt, only the relevant debt.

 

It's not about writing a blank check for a costly degree, but to go ahead and invest eight years in your education so you can be well-prepared as a lawyer or doctor or engineer and be able to work in the public sector.

 

No, it shouldn't pay for the preceding degree in an unrelated field, but it should pay for the full cost of an education. Hell, most countries pay for that for everyone at least to SOME extent. I think the idea that you could serve the poor for 10 years, and have to take out an education that costs more than a down payment, or heck, in some cases, more than a house, like for a specialist, and we say "Sorry you shouldn't have studied that if you couldn't pay it off" appalling.

Research the issue a little more. Have you read up on the subject? Many of the anticipated average beneficiaries, as studied now as the first group is coming close to the 10 years, were totally not the target population the program was intended to serve. This program is not at all restricted to practicing in high need, low income or primarily rural areas- there were/are other, better (as in more generous), programs for that. It sounds like you are potentially confusing this large program with other, older and smaller programs. Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ravin]

The other thing is that non-traditional law students are more likely to be placebound or need to enroll in a 4 year PT program. There are many places with only one or two law schools. There's even a state with zero law schools.

 

The choices in my area are both fairly costly, though the more highly ranked school is cheaper because it's the state university. If I lived in a state where in-state tuition was $15k a year instead of north of $25k, that would perhaps change my own educational decision. Off and on, I've given a lot of thought to either special education law or family law focusing on DV victims and people in difficult family law situations who can't afford a lawyer but decided the price tag for law school is too high here. We have two sons and a niece and nephew who depend on us and my husband's earning potential in this area is higher than other areas so I just don't think moving is in the cards for my family. This is our home and there is value in that for us. What I am saying is that while there may be cheaper law schools, some people will find them impractical to attend. So I understand why people so often end up with high loan burdens post graduation.

The mobility thing was 100% an issue when choosing a law school--I applied to the better of 2 options that didn't involve moving. For a job after I was not tied to staying put--some of the jobs I applied for were in that state with 0 law schools, for instance. We were prepared to temporarily split the family (since DH is still in school) if necessary, and it helped that I'm in a Multistate Bar Exam state, so my exam scores were transportable to any of 16 states (iirc). Edited February 8, 2016 by Ravin

[Tsuga]

Research the issue a little more. Have you read up on the subject? Many of the anticipated average beneficiaries, as studied now as the first group is coming close to the 10 years, were totally not the target population the program was intended to serve. This program is not at all restricted to practicing in high need, low income or primarily rural areas- there were/are other, better (as in more generous), programs for that. It sounds like you are potentially confusing this large program with other, older and smaller programs.

 

Hell yes I've read up on it! :laugh:  I'm $1,000 per year off from actually benefiting from it (I have average loans and an above-average salary). Yes, they wanted people to be able to work exclusively with the poor, but they never put in that stipulation. Not even close. You never had to work only with the poorest.

 

I know you don't have to work in high need areas. Any public sector job will do. I agree with that. Honestly, when you are working in the public sector, in the non-profit hospitals, it's not like the majority of your clients are well-off. They are generally working and middle-class people, with a dash of poverty in there.

 

I know two teachers, one midwife (Dr. of Nursing Practice in Midwifery), one doctor, and one lawyer who are using this. I think it's great. None of them are poor and none of them are focused exclusively on working with the poorest of the poor. Three of them (the doctors and lawyers) specifically got those degrees thinking of this program, knowing that they would continue to be able to support their families on a normal salary even if they had debt. For the teachers, this has enabled them to not live in dire poverty themselves. They don't have hardwood floors. They don't take vacations. They don't have their kids in expensive sports. We are just talking about driving a small commuter car, two kids in public schools, and maybe driving to a state park once a year. They would not be able to do that without this program. And yes, the loans were high, but they got them while studying full time at regional private schools because not everyone can get into the state schools. They are GREAT teachers, highly lauded.

 

 

I don't think you should have to basically work only with the poorest of the poor and live in a crappy, drippy apartment or rural area an hour from a movie theater in order to qualify for government support for your loan.

 

On the contrary I think the whole loan structure is messed up and people should get more public funding for their degrees period, and Peace Corps, military, and public servants should get large forgiveness.

[LucyStoner]

Tsuga, there will invariably be cost overruns when students don't have to consider the cost of their educations.

 

Being price sensitive to how much debt you take on isn't a bad thing.

 

Making school more affordable or very low cost is a great thing. Student loan forgiveness with no asset test, limit on loan amounts or clear public service aspect is not the only, or the best, way to do that. Student loan interest is high enough right now that new borrowers with high loan balances may never pay much more than the interest. This is not sustainable and does nothing to help contain college costs or reward students who self contain their debt loads. Maybe time will prove me wrong on this but with the direction this country is headed I will be surprised if efforts aren't made to either kill or reform this program. I hope that it is thoughtful and reasonable reform rather than the loss of the program for people who really need it. There's a long list of ways to exclude large chunks of income from the amount your income based payments are calculated on. As more people exploit those, something will have to give.

 

I'm not sure where you are surmising that I think people should have to be dirt poor to get their student loans forgiven. By high income beneficiaries, I am talking about people making well into the six figures before a spouse's income (which can be excluded from the calculation for repayment) is factored in. I'm not talking about those with household incomes just above or below six figures in a HCOL area. Another issue is that COL is not really accurately factored into the calculation. People who live where we do benefit less from this calculation than those living where it is much cheaper to live. This is because FPL is not broken out by county or even, for the most part, state.

 

The top hospitals in our area are ALL non-profits. They are serving everyone, not as you suggest, the middle class and the poor. Which is as it should be. My husband works at one of them.

Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Tsuga]

They don't serve mostly well-off people because most people aren't well off.

 

If your husband is mostly serving rich people then that would be a function of his specialty and insurance regulations for that set of procedures, not work address. I said thy are serving mostly the poor and middle class, not exclusively.

 

10% repayment for ten years will not lead to cost overruns if it only applies to federal loans and those are limited to certain types of expenses.

 

They can limit the loans in the first place--which they do, loans are not unlimited--and don't need to restrict the program.

 

My friends benefit because more of their salaries are dedicated to housing so they live closer to work. That's huge for them.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Tsuga

[Bluegoat]

There are such funds in my state. The completion and sucessful hire rates for those over 50 are apparently quite low. If they finish the retraining, they are usually at a disadvantage in hiring to other new trainees who are younger. Age discrimination in hiring is a huge barrier for older workers, especially ones trying to crack into a new field. Interviewers are younger than them and they tend to assume that hiring someone who will retire in just a few years is a waste of their resources. It's also darn near impossible to enforce the laws banning age discrimination.

 

My father was laid off from his non-physically demanding ordinary office job at the phone company just before 60. He spent a year looking for ANY job and then another year trying to keep up with the state offered course to retrain in something else. He's a smart man but his ability to memorize the information he needed to in order to pass was fairly low. In the end all the retraining really did for him was allow him to extend his unemployment coverage so he could sort of stay afloat until he got early SS and a senior housing assignment at 62. He'd only been with the phone company for 6-7 years before he was laid off and had minimal assets.

 

Another gentleman I know looked 70+ in his 50s because he'd lived a hard life and had worked from the time he got out of the service until there were no more jobs in his industry he could do. Really, at some point, there were just barely any jobs in this state in his old industry (logging/mill work). He lived and, to the best of my knowledge, still lives in his truck. He's a street vendor because he looks so worn out he couldn't get a retail job. Doing that he takes in enough to buy food and gas. He's too proud to accept any help finding housing. People would wonder why he was still needing to work at all- wondering why he wasn't collecting SS- and it was because he was more than a decade younger than he looked. While he was a perfectly nice person, he really wasn't mentally up to retraining. And frankly, I think it's somewhat insulting of our state to ask him to retrain at that age and in that condition.

 

While I am all for retraining people who want to and are up for it, I really don't like living in a world where we can spend money trying to get folks to retrain but not on keeping lifetime laborers from having to live in their trucks when their bodies give out or their jobs vanish before they are retirement age.

 

 

I think though if people are willing to think creatively about work, there might be a lot more possibilities.  What kinds of work could people do while receiving an earlier benefit, to top that up?  Something not terribly physically demanding, doesn't require many new skills, maybe part time?

 

If there was a guaranteed income, that would make a huge difference to so many problems of this kind.

 

I've also read about places where people can do little jobs around the city in return for local currency chits.  These can be used sometimes in small shops, or in other cases for things like taxes.  Jobs include things like picking up litter, weeding city beds, and other small kinds of jobs that increase QOL.  I can imagine it also including things like teaching in rec programs or working as a museum guide or at a food bank.  With a lower maintenance payment either SS or a guaranteed income it would give some extra money and improve the community, and make sure people felt useful.

[LucyStoner]

They don't serve mostly well-off people because most people aren't well off.

 

If your husband is mostly serving rich people then that would be a function of his specialty and insurance regulations for that set of procedures, not work address. I said thy are serving mostly the poor and middle class, not exclusively.

 

10% repayment for ten years will not lead to cost overruns if it only applies to federal loans and those are limited to certain types of expenses.

 

They can limit the loans in the first place--which they do, loans are not unlimited--and don't need to restrict the program.

 

My friends benefit because more of their salaries are dedicated to housing so they live closer to work. That's huge for them.

 

You are totally incorrect here.  Undergraduate loans are capped and the use is restricted to tuition and qualified fees, books and expenses.  Graduate loans are not limited though Tsuga and can (are) often used for non-educational expenses.  Living expenses is a broad category. This is why I suggested that you needed to learn more about the issue.  Lots of professional students have loan burdens which are 6 figures beyond tuition and fees and what one could live a very frugal student life on.  In the past, they did this because interest rates were low and it was access to money to get started with buying a house or such but they would still be paying it back, eventually.  

 

I didn't say most- I said that many of the beneficiaries are outside of the range of what was really intended when the program was implemented.  

 

From the New York Times last year:

 

 

 

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the idea of more government spending on higher education. “The potential cost of this program is enormous,†said Representative Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican who leads the House Education and the Workforce Committee’s higher education subcommittee. “It’s unfair to burden hardworking taxpayers, many of whom have not had the opportunity to attend college, with that debt,†she said.

 

The change in college financing has a potentially serious drawback when it comes to college pricing. Income-based repayment programs in Australia and Britain work in part because national governments keep tuition low. Public universities are, to different degrees, legally obligated to hold down tuition prices in exchange for financial support from state governments. But that system has been eroded by state budget cuts, driving tuition and borrowing up, and there are no price restraints attached to the federal IBR system.

 

This is less a problem for undergraduate programs, for which traditional students are allowed to borrow only up to $31,000 in total. Graduate students, by contrast, can borrow up to the full “cost of attendance†— tuition, fees, room and board. For medical and law schools, this can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, all potentially forgivable under IBR. This creates a strong incentive for graduate and professional schools to raise prices and pass federal taxpayers the bill.

 

To counter such practices, the Obama administration has proposed moving the forgiveness threshold for students with large graduate debts to 25 years from 20, and capping public service loan forgiveness at $57,000.

 

 

Reform is already proposed but it has not passed yet.  The legislative intent was not to provide a huge benefit for affluent professionals who technically work for non-profits or the government.  As enrollment in the program skyrockets, and people start having hundreds of thousands of dollars forgiven, there will be the legislative equivalent of bloodshed.  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/upshot/a-quiet-revolution-in-helping-lift-the-burden-of-student-debt.html

 

I am also not saying that my husband's hospital serves mainly well off people.  They serve everyone.  My husband is just moving into informatics so he will serve the machines and have limited patient interaction, lol.  10 years from now, he will be easily drawing a very large salary.  It would feel strange to me for us to make that much and not pay our own bills.  I was merely pointing out that there are very highly paid professionals working for these non-profits.  Non-profits like Swedish.  It's not only open to someone who is choosing to forgo earning potential to fill unmet needs. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by LucyStoner

[regentrude]

I've also read about places where people can do little jobs around the city in return for local currency chits.  These can be used sometimes in small shops, or in other cases for things like taxes.  Jobs include things like picking up litter, weeding city beds, and other small kinds of jobs that increase QOL.  I can imagine it also including things like teaching in rec programs or working as a museum guide or at a food bank.  With a lower maintenance payment either SS or a guaranteed income it would give some extra money and improve the community, and make sure people felt useful.

 

In my home country, there are programs like this for long term unemployed. The problem with those is that one has to be extremely careful which tasks are covered this way. For example, if you have such people take care of public green spaces and they receive a small amount of money from the taxpayer in return for these services, that eliminates business for a private landscaping company that would pay its workers a living wage. If you have them help in the nursing home, that will eliminate more qualified staff positions.

It requires very careful balance and should be reserved for tasks that would not get done otherwise.

 

[Ravin]

You are totally incorrect here.  Undergraduate loans are capped and the use is restricted to tuition and qualified fees, books and expenses.  Graduate loans are not limited though Tsuga and can (are) often used for non-educational expenses.  Living expenses is a broad category. This is why I suggested that you needed to learn more about the issue.  Lots of professional students have loan burdens which are 6 figures beyond tuition and fees and what one could live a very frugal student life on.  In the past, they did this because interest rates were low and it was access to money to get started with buying a house or such but they would still be paying it back, eventually.  

 

I didn't say most- I said that many of the beneficiaries are outside of the range of what was really intended when the program was implemented.  

 

From the New York Times last year:

 

 

 

 

Reform is already proposed but it has not passed yet.  The legislative intent was not to provide a huge benefit for affluent professionals who technically work for non-profits or the government.  As enrollment in the program skyrockets, and people start having hundreds of thousands of dollars forgiven, there will be the legislative equivalent of bloodshed.  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/upshot/a-quiet-revolution-in-helping-lift-the-burden-of-student-debt.html

 

 

So, if you’re a current or recent graduate student who was counting on forgiveness down the road, don’t hit the panic button just yet. Even if eligible forgiveness amounts were reduced in the future, Congress is likely to grandfather in existing eligible borrowers any time a benefit is altered or phased out.

 

from this article:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/2015/03/11/graduate-school-loan-borrowers-may-face-reduced-forgiveness-options

 

The real solution long term would be getting states to inject money back into universities and bring tuition rates back down. The Federal government is already working on getting the loan issue under control also by going after for-profit private schools which are saddling students with disproportionate debt.

 

In law, there is a VERY big difference in the salary expectations of an attorney in the public/nonprofit sector and one working in the private sector. The difference isn't as large when talking starting salary right out of school, but it's enough that many attorneys who start out in the public sector jump ship 3-5 years in because they have the experience to follow the money elsewhere. The loan forgiveness program is a powerful incentive to stay put.

 

Nobody gets rich as a public defender, prosecutor, or community legal service attorney.

[EmseB]

 

The real solution long term would be getting states to inject money back into universities and bring tuition rates back down. The Federal government is already working on getting the loan issue under control also by going after for-profit private schools which are saddling students with disproportionate debt.

 

 

But...one of the main reasons tuition rates are so high is because the government is subsidizing these school already via loans.  Everyone thinks it's just the for-profit schools that are predatory in this way, but even non-profit schools take advantage of what students are able to pay because of loans.  They just have to reinvest the money in different ways than a for-profit school, but often times the "profit" shows up in the same sort of ways.  Just subsidizing the schools from the other end of the spectrum would not solve the problem, in that the government would be spending the same (if not more money) to subsidize universities which then have no financial incentive to maintain a reasonable/reasonable budget.

 

Also, students are saddling themselves with debt.  Schools are not doing this to people.  It's not passive or forced on people.

Edited February 8, 2016 by JodiSue

[EmseB]

 

 

Nobody gets rich as a public defender, prosecutor, or community legal service attorney.

 

 

I would also say, here, that you and Katie are talking about two different things.

[creekland]

In my home country, there are programs like this for long term unemployed. The problem with those is that one has to be extremely careful which tasks are covered this way. For example, if you have such people take care of public green spaces and they receive a small amount of money from the taxpayer in return for these services, that eliminates business for a private landscaping company that would pay its workers a living wage. If you have them help in the nursing home, that will eliminate more qualified staff positions.

It requires very careful balance and should be reserved for tasks that would not get done otherwise.

 

 

This is why some of the more latest trends of offices not throwing parties, etc, in favor of giving the money saved to charity is not always a wise decision.  By throwing the party they are supporting jobs.  By giving to charity they aren't.

 

Going back to a previous topic... I got to talk with hubby about the body situation over the weekend and he's totally on board with donating my body to a med school when I don't need it anymore.  He even mentioned something similar for him (or a Viking funeral - sending the body out to sea in a flaming boat), so no worries about needing expensive caskets or violating land uses here.  I suppose we ought to write it down somewhere in the event that we go together...

[TammyS]

 

I once drove my oldest nephew home to his mom and step dad in very rural central Florida. I drove off the freeway, then off the highway, then off the paved road, then off anything that could qualify as "a road" at all. There was a mass of ramshackle trailer homes plunked down there. Dead of night, no lights. When his stepdad didn't immediately answer it was all I could do to not put him back in the rental car and commit felony kidnapping by flying him back to the PNW with me. Who lived all the way back there? People like his stepdad. Very low income and often with open warrants for their arrest. I think the "landlord" was charging them some insane sum.

 

 

 

Sounds kinda like where I lived for 15 years (we weren't a mass of trailers, just one, but it was from 1970 and pretty ramshackle, despite efforts to keep it together), right down to the lack of lights.  Well, I did get outside lights eventually.  Just took my dh...awhile...to fix it.  Being poor sucks.