
The Lasting Consequences of Student Debt - happy-go-lucky
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/04/04/522456671/a-new-look-at-the-lasting-consequences-of-student-debt
======
austenallred
The thing that irks me about this the most is how it's the people who were
doing exactly what they were told that got hurt the most. The good kids who
went to the best school they could get in to, studied whatever they were
interested in, and if that thing happened to be literature or women's studies
or a wide number of other things you might just spend the next 20 years
figuring out how to live with debt you can't pay off.

I was brought up under the faulty assumption that if you graduate from college
you get a promising career, so pay whatever that takes. Full stop. My entire
generation was. Not one teacher or counselor or advisor ever mentioned
anything about cost relative to career prospects, and now it's my smart
friends who are getting kicked in the teeth, while the kids like me who didn't
listen and dropped out and played with computers are richly rewarded.

I can't even count the number of friends with six figures of student debt and
no career on both hands.

I think Peter Thiel was right: for some time Americans believed in a college
education so fully, so completely that we ignored the cost, even as it
skyrocketed. Couple that with federally-backed loans, and no one even
considered the _risk_. 100% of the risk was put on 18-year-old kids, many of
whom had never seen a day in the workforce, paid a bill, or had a job.

A lot of people will make it out unscathed, but for those that don't we lived
through (or are living in) a giant secondary education bubble. But this time
it's one that you can't bankrupt your way out of.

~~~
ryandrake
> The thing that irks me about this the most is how it's the people who were
> doing exactly what they were told that got hurt the most. The good kids who
> went to the best school they could get in to, studied whatever they were
> interested in, and if that thing happened to be literature or women's
> studies or a wide number of other things you might just spend the next 20
> years figuring out how to live with debt you can't pay off.

Are they REALLY telling kids nowadays to go major in whatever interested them?
Because when I went to college (nineties), nobody told me to just go major in
women's studies or medieval history. They were telling me, "Study medicine or
engineering because that's the only way it'll be worth the cost." The "what
does a liberal arts major say" joke was very much a thing back then, as I
assume it is today, now that job prospects for anyone not in STEM are even
bleaker than when I went to school.

I don't think the guy who took out $100K in loans to study literature for 5
years was really doing exactly what they were told to do.

~~~
austenallred
I graduated high school in 2008 and dropped out of college a few years later.
I can honestly say not one person (other than my parents) ever recommended
considering cost until after my Freshman year of college. The message that was
pounded in again and again and again was "The best college at all costs."

I'm pretty sure that's no longer the case - at least I hope so.

~~~
agalarza
Sorry if this is too personal, but did you think your parents were blowing hot
air or something?

This thread has been eye-opening from the perspective of all these comments
who (apparently) had negligible guidance from a group of people (parents) who
absolutely need to talk about debt to their kids.

Maybe a silver lining in this topic is a generation of future parents who will
have better conversations with their kids around going into debt for their
college education.

~~~
rayiner
My parents _never_ warned me about education debt. I think it's a common trait
among baby boomer parents - they're convinced it'll all work out and that
education is worth any cost. Heck, my parents (who are both baby boomers and
asian, so double whammy) are disappointed that my brother will not leave his
Wall Street job to go to graduate school. They can't even articulate a reason
how that would help his career--they're just disappointed that they both have
masters degrees and he's just got a bachelors degree.

The culture surrounding education in this country is not rational. It's a soup
of optimism, hope, preconception, ignorance, and classism, along with the
avarice of those in the educational establishment that prey on the foregoing.

~~~
will_brown
I would add that baby boomers either: a) had parents able to pay for their
entire education; b) were able to work their way thru school; or c) used a GI
bill.

In other words the market effects of guaranteed student loans that permited
colleges/universities to charge any tuition fees they want and still have an
endless supply of student with the funds to pay. Baby boomers can't imagine
graduating with the equivalent of a mortgage payment and the reality of a non
existent job market that might put them in a financial position to payoff
their student loans much less pursue the American dream (house, car, kids).

Meanwhile culturally we have a media that pushes the narrative of 4%
unemployment; that young people don't want to own a car; young people don't
want to own a house; and young people don't want to get married and have
families. The whole thing highlights US culture from the individual to the
collective willing to lie/embellish finances, which prohibits anyone from
having honest conversations about guaranteed loans; actually costs of school;
lack of jobs; non existent wage increases since the 80's...it's the culture of
lying/masking finances and a debt fueled economy that lead to housing collapse
and eventually will lead to a collapse in the student loan market.

------
davidf18
A problem is that many of the higher paying jobs are in cities such as NYC,
SF, LA, Boston, DC, (also London, ...) and the housing is expensive in these
cities because of "rent-seeking" \-- a market failure or market inefficiency
caused by an politically induced scarcity of housing through zoning density
restrictions. This harms renters and those starting out in life while
benefiting wealthy landlords such as President Trump. The fix is a simple one
which is to overturn the zoning density restrictions.

In 2002 Japan passed a federal law that gave the federal government control of
housing density restrictions: the result is that in 2014 Tokyo built 140,000
homes vs. 20,000 for NYC and less than 90,000 for all of California.

The local politicians are bought off by the wealthy landlords and those just
trying to make their life after graduating from college and poor people are
paying for it.

I wrote more about this today at:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14032591](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14032591)

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> a market failure or market inefficiency caused by an politically induced
> scarcity of housing through zoning density restrictions.

This is true, but it's also a failure of policies that have led to the
majority of job growth being in the biggest cities in the country. If we could
spread things out a bit and keep smaller cities a viable place to create jobs,
the bigger cities wouldn't be impacted nearly as hard.

~~~
Retric
I think it has less to do with viable job creation than wider political
issues. It's cheap to open an office in Iowa, but talent/upper middle class
people don't want to move there.

Not simply because of social issues, but because companies don't pay enough.
IE if I can save 20% of 150k moving to a cheap location is only viable if I
can save 30k not just 20% of a lower salary.

~~~
pc86
$100k in Iowa will go a lot farther than $200k in San Francisco, and if you
can get $200k in SF you can almost certainly get a similar job making $100k
(or more) in rural Iowa.

Now, if you don't want to do that because "gross, it's Iowa" and NYC or SF is
objectively a more enjoyable environment for a 20-something single software
developer, that's fine. But that's a choice and at that point you're simply
deciding to live in a more expensive location because it's more fun.

Source: I live in rural Pennsylvania, and used to work for a company in rural
Iowa (remotely).

~~~
Retric
If I can save X dollars per year in San Francisco then I need to be able to
save X dollars per year in Iowa not just live similar lifestyles on less
money. Because savings has _ZERO_ cost of living adjustments. Further, Social
Security has zero cost of living adjustments so if your making less than the
cap that has long term consequences. If your saving 15% at 200k that's 30% at
100k for the same net savings. While a 100k lifestyle in Pennsylvania may be
like a 200k lifestyle in SF a 70k lifestyle in Pennsylvania is probably not
like a 170k lifestyle in SF.

This is most apparent when you travel as a hotel in Europe does not give a
discount because your living in the Midwest. Further, someone may be willing
to live in an efficiency when that's saving 10k/year, but not when it's saving
3k/year.

~~~
BeetleB
>If I can save X dollars per year in San Francisco then I need to be able to
save X dollars per year in Iowa not just live similar lifestyles on less
money.

Agreed, and I think that is what people are saying. Also, do make sure you do
an apples to apples comparison. In the Midwest, I may pay $1500/mo to live in
a 2500 sq ft house (and less with all the tax credits related to interest/real
estate). Compare the same cost for a 2500 sq ft house you are buying in SF. I
generally see people comparing the 2500 sq ft house in Iowa with the 1300 sq
ft apartment in SF, which is not a fair comparison.

Also, consider the age of the house.

How much per month would a 2500 sq ft house built after 2000 in the Bay Area
cost you in mortgage + taxes?

~~~
Retric
Even that's not really a fair comparison. I would be willing to live in an
efficiency to save an extra 10k / year because a 1000 sq ft apartment is not
inherently worth that much to me. I have a 1br apartment because the cost
difference is tiny, and efficiency's are hard to find. Further, I flat out
don't want a 2500 sq ft house, but for those people who want that much space
sure it's a different cost / benefit comparison.

A fair comparison is based on similar levels of someones personal utility
function. If they like green carpets slightly more and they own their house
they might get green carpets, but it's not really a large benefit to home
ownership _for them_.

In the end of the day more people live in NYC metro area than live in New
Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode
Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, District of
Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming combined. Largely because they think it's a
better tradeoff.

~~~
BeetleB
>I would be willing to live in an efficiency to save an extra 10k / year
because a 1000 sq ft apartment is not inherently worth that much to me. I have
a 1br apartment because the cost difference is tiny, and efficiency's are hard
to find. Further, I flat out don't want a 2500 sq ft house, but for those
people who want that much space sure it's a different cost / benefit
comparison.

Sure, but then compare the cost with the same efficiency in the Midwest. When
I lived there, you could get decent efficiencies for under $400/mo.

~~~
Retric
I am trying to do an neutral analysis not just favor one side.

Importantly, the gap between an efficiency in Midwest vs. SF is much less
money than a 2500 sf house which favors SF. But, people would likely not get
an efficiency in the Midwest on a 100k salary because the gap between an
efficiency is also small. Or as a young friend of mine said, not being in WV
is worth having a roommate in Northern Virginia.

Up-sizing lifestyle to compensate for downsizing culture seems very appealing
when you have kids. Further, the closer you get to retirement the less
important that years savings become. But, at that point you have already got a
social circle in _ which biases as does even higher salaries you can get at
40+.

Still, I think based on behavior companies need to offer higher salaries
outside of major metro areas before people stop concentrating in those areas.
Yokyo Japan and many other major city's show the same trends suggesting it's
not just US government policies responsible.

------
treehau5
Did any of these kids (and I am one of them, graduated in 2013) stop and think
that paying 50-70k a year after room and board to attend a university was
insane? I had the option to go to a nice university, and maybe my horizons
would have been expanded, maybe they wouldn't, but at the end of the day I am
happy where I ended up and I went to community college for 2 years, and the
public state university, for the remaining two., driving 1 hour to college
from my parents house. Crazy I know. I lived at home! I ended up with 1/16th
the debt of most of my cohorts.

It's fine if these kids were just doing exactly what they were told or people
sold them on the koolaid, but generations prior also had to navigate the
diverse world of snake-oil salesmen and people hyping up things and
overvaluing them -- you can't beat teaching common money sense. Simple math.
Teaching personal finance should be in inserted into middle school and taught
all the way to graduation.

~~~
reader5000
I agree, the taxpayers were pretty stupid for taking on the risk that kids
wont be able to pay on their student loans. Too bad for the taxpayer!

~~~
DamnYuppie
The government is collecting quite a bit of interest on over $1.4 trillion
dollars in student loans.

I was also under the impression that for the vast majority, outside of a few
programs, can't get rid of the debt, even with bankruptcy. So overall the
money is being made.

------
ThrustVectoring
College is a positional good, so "Is college worth it" is a question with two
answers. Let me explain.

The first question is "as an individual job-seeker, is college worth it _to me
personally_ ". Which it probably still is - there's very real discrimination
against folks without a degree.

The second question is "for job-seekers _as a class_ , does college help
them". Which it almost certainly isn't - there's a huge amount of time and
money spent on what's mostly a piece of paper that says "I'm smart enough to
get into college, not-lower-class enough to spend the time and money, and
obedient enough to jump through arbitrary hoops". Employees as a class aren't
magically better because they have a piece of paper, they're better because of
specific skills and abilities that they learn that enable extra productivity.

People see that college is worth it for individuals, and then they go and
shovel gigantic piles of money at college for everyone, and this just pisses
me the hell off because it's so goddamn wasteful.

IMO, the only realistic way out of this hole is to make it illegal to ask
about college education or verify with an issuing institution whether or not
you have a degree. If an employer asks, they get sued or prosecuted. If a job-
seeker tells, the employer can't find out if they're lying. Only remaining
thing is to screen for actual knowledge, like "are you a good enough engineer
to not make buildings that collapse". Professional exams - like the
Fundamentals of Engineering or actuarial exams - seem like an appropriate fit
for that.

~~~
stinkytaco
I like this idea, but I also routinely see criticism on HN of interviews that
attempt to determine knowledge level (puzzle solving, programming tasks, and
so on). And, of course, you start to wade into the problem of any exam, that
it's too narrow, biased, and so on.

I think your point about job-seekers as a class is mostly right, but it
doesn't bring into account one of the things college provides you, which is a
well-rounded education. Now, this may or may not be worthwhile to you, but my
experience is that college is a good shorthand to "will this person be a good
coworker". There are plenty of things about that hoop jumping that have value
in the working world. They are probably OK in teams, they are probably OK at
administrative work, and so on. I had a friend who went to MIT that said "if
someone graduated from MIT, at least I know they have good time management
skills". This is absolutely not universally true, but a higher percentage of
the college graduates I've worked with are good in teams than of non-college
graduates I've worked with.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Does college provide it, or select for it? This is extraordinarily important.
If it teaches good time management skills, then we can get more of that by
expanding college programs. If it merely fails out people who don't have good
time management skills, then there are cheaper ways to get a piece of paper
proving that the holder has good time management skills.

>This is absolutely not universally true, but a higher percentage of the
college graduates I've worked with are good in teams than of non-college
graduates I've worked with.

And even if true, this is _not an argument to expand college education_. Like,
I absolutely agree that there's good reasons for individual employers to
prefer college graduates. There's also good reasons for individual fishing
boats to prefer over-fishing.

~~~
stinkytaco
Where the overfishing analogy breaks down is that we have the power to provide
enough fish. College doesn't _have_ to be expensive. As little as 15 years ago
it was quite possible to work your way through college and come out with
manageable debt. Something else happened to balloon the cost of education in
that time period. Perhaps the increased reliance on loans, cuts in financial
aid to students and state assistance to universities, ballooning student
services and administration costs, etc. I don't know. But it certainly seems
like a problem that can be solved on the supply end.

Which leads me to the other end of the equation, the job market. The
distinction between selection and training isn't important to me as an
employer. What I as an employer know is that college is a good shorthand for a
variety of skills I feel are important. Knowledge testing doesn't cover those
skills. It would likely encourage me to disregard entry level candidates in
favor of ones with previous work experience or contacts I trust. Right now I'm
fairly confident taking a flyer on a young person either in or recently
graduated from college that interviews well, but that confidence would
decrease without that knowledge and I don't have any shortage of candidates
with work experience.

I'm willing to explore new ways of evaluation, but I think over time college
became optimized for putting out good white collar employees. And employers
have become optimized to working with people that have a certain, homogeneous
educational background. Before we cut that wire, we need to have the
alternative evaluation pieces in place or the negative externalities,
especially on young candidates, would be huge.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
College costs are, IMO, entirely because student loans removed the need for
colleges to compete on price. Regardless of cost and value, students could get
loans to cover it. So in order to compete, institutions branched out into
what's basically bling, with sports being a salient example.

There's also a fundamental economic pressure from non-education productivity.
It takes just as many man-hours to teach a class, but those man-hours would go
further growing potatos or making widgets.

I have a suspicion that the problem can't be supplied out of. Not everyone can
have the nicest house in the neighborhood, no matter how many nice houses you
build. It wasn't that long ago that high-school education or the equivalent
was something that set you apart and ahead. Now it's just kind of an assumed
requirement. I'm afraid that making an undergraduate degree ubiquitous would
make a master's degree the new bachelor's. In some fields, this is already
happening.

~~~
stinkytaco
That's a fair enough point. You simply keep raising the bar for how much
education people need. But I don't think that's a problem of job seeking or
education, but of the economy in general. There are simply fewer things for
people to do. I'm no Marxist, but it does seem glaringly obvious to me that
since the industrial revolution we have made more things with machines,
requiring fewer people. For a while increased consumerism meant we could re-
purpose people into making new stuff, and when that was automated we could
shuffle them into service jobs, but there's a cap on that. Increasingly, only
the most qualified people will be able to do the fewer and fewer things there
are to do. _That 's_ why college is so important. There's no chance without
it.

But I do think the supply can be solved. I think "everyone gets loans"
oversimplify the issue because most institutions are state run, there isn't
really much competition in the free-market sense of the word. Because the
government controls the bulk of higher education in the US, we are in a better
position to solve this problem than any other discussed. Part of it is to
start supporting it again. Return grant programs and create real financial aid
so people who need money can get it and people who don't aren't forced to take
it.

------
nojvek
> So, is college still worth it? In the most simplistic terms, yes.

Not really, college is only worth it if you finish a select number of degrees
and are somewhat middle class to begin with.

US education system slowly alienates a large portion of the country putting
them in debt forever. It's a stark contrast to Germany and some of the Nordic
countries.

But I also believe America is too big to make much changes regarding
education.

------
nercht12
Even STEM can be a bad investment, depending on what you do. I graduated with
a degree in Chem, wanting to do nanoscale computers and -later- optical
computing. Found out 3rd year that unless I got a doctorate, I'd be a
glorified lab rat. What's worse is that even if I got a doctorate, I'd still
be a lab rat while trying to get one and would have a sliver of a chance to
get a job anyways. My choice? I graduated, but didn't do grad school. Think of
that next to you wonder why STEM jobs aren't being filled. There were some
redeeming measures of school. I got a minor in CS, some text on my resume that
says I went to school and got good grades - the first step for many companies
to even consider you - and learned about a number of really good books I might
not have encountered by just randomly exploring the net. Still, I probably
would've done better without school. I will now take this opportunity to
mention that I'm still looking for work, albeit sunny Cal is too expensive for
me to consider jobs out there.

~~~
poikniok
How can California be too expensive to consider a job in? Total comp can be
very very high ...

~~~
nercht12
Pay is offset by the cost of living because everyone out there thinks you can
afford it. I suppose it would help pay off my bills faster, but that's
assuming steady work. That said, I'm so-so as to whether or not to take a job
there.

------
RUG3Y
This is a bit tangential to the conversation, but relevant: I have an art
degree. I was pushed into getting any degree. I'm a part of that same
generation that was told to go to college at all costs, even if you don't know
what you want to do with yourself. Fast forward 11 years, and I've just
finally paid my student loans off.

Now I'm in this situation: I'm not doing a whole lot with art, and I'm trying
to break into software development. Do I need a CS degree? Any opinions? I'm
thinking about going back to school but the thought of possibly having more
debt is not something I'm interested in. I'm having a hard time finding even
junior level jobs that are interested in people without degrees. I'm a fairly
competent programmer as-is, self taught.

~~~
stinkytaco
Freelance? Start contributing to OS projects and consult? I mean, if you're
trying to break in without existing credentials or work product, I would have
to think you'd need to create some work product and connections.

~~~
RUG3Y
I have some creds + experience but I'm looking to get more. I haven't cracked
freelancing yet. Places like Odesk seem like a mess and I haven't had good
results.

~~~
GFischer
Don't go to Odesk. There's plenty of advice on how to freelance here on Hacker
News.

I've actually been on both sides of the table - as a freelancer I never got
work through Odesk, I was actually hired through Hacker News once, and when it
comes to hiring freelancers, I've recruited through my network
(recommendations, etc.) and haven't considered Odesk.

If I were to go freelance again I would make it known in the local
entrepreneurship community.

------
supergeek133
These types of things are always a cause and effect relationship, and I feel
we never look at the cause.

This line bothers me in particular:

> So, is college still worth it? In the most simplistic terms, yes.

It is only worth it because we've made it a requirement to find employment
with growth potential outside of the trades or sales. Hell, even some sales
jobs are requiring degrees now.

If Corporate America was honest with itself about which jobs REALLY required a
degree versus just some level of experience, college would become devalued in
some respects.

I'm 'one of the lucky ones'. I don't have a degree, I work in a fairly
important job for a fortune 100 company. I am paid fairly well for my area and
I enjoy my job. My experience built up over time got me to where I am, but I
know many others who weren't afforded the same chance just because their
resume didn't have a piece of paper and debt attached to it. That being said
I'll probably eventually hit a wall where I can't advance anymore, and I'm
probably OK with that.

The other cause we've failed to address is the constantly rising cost of going
to college. Government programs to increase loan availability (and
forgiveness) have just raised the price, because the student can "afford" it.

------
contingencies
_graduating from college makes you almost as likely to own a home, by age 36,
as someone from a high-income family._

I assume they mean "own" in the sense "get a mortgage on" not "have fully paid
for", no?

~~~
cbr
That's what "own" means with houses. You're a "homeowner" after closing, and
you are the legal owner of the property, even though you still owe thousands
to your bank.

~~~
contingencies
That's my point. Debt is not an achievement.

------
giardini
Taleb's 2012 book "Antifragility" discusses the state of university education
and student loans:

"Harvard is like a Vuitton bag or a Cartier watch. It is a huge drag on the
middle-class parents who have been plowing an increased share of their savings
into these institutions, transferring their money to administrators, real
estate developers, professors, and other agents. In the United States, we have
a buildup of student loans that automatically transfer to these rent
extractors, In a way it is no different from racketeering..."

On the future of education:

"My answer: BS is fragile. Which scam in history has lasted forever? I have an
enormous faith in Time and History as eventual debunkers of fragility.
Education is an institution that has been growing without external stressors;
eventually the thing will collapse."

\- "Antifragile", Chapter 17 (last 2 pages)

\- Nassim Nicholas Taleb

~~~
giardini
Hey, why the downvote?

------
ge96
I was an idiot, like "Hell yeah give me this money." Only later realizing how
long it would take me to pay. Luckily for me what I owe is a mere pittance
compared to someone like a doctor. But I also make 1/3rd of a pitance per
year... haha I like that word pittance. Tribute to that Futurama episode,
"Honking"

Anyway yeap... sucks thankfully I have a somewhat functioning brain, despite
the loans, not getting a useful degree/potentially wasting three years of
money/life, I have an opportunity to dig myself out. It's my own fault by the
way I had a great opportunity and I pissed it away because I was a jackass.
But yeah, it's easy to accept this money and not realize the interest like a
couple of my loans are 6.8% APR and paying the interest down alone holy crap.

------
OliverJones
If you're going to university, repeat after me.

"People who loan money to students are dangerous predators, and I am their
lawful prey."

That doesn't mean you shouldn't go to university, or that you shouldn't borrow
money. Just be careful around predators.

~~~
compiler-guy
"People who loan money to anyone are dangerous predators, and the people who
take the loan are their lawful prey."

------
chestervonwinch
> debt significantly hurts your chances of buying a home

60k in the hole still from undergrad loans. The thought of taking out a
mortage after this debt is finished is not appealing. "hurts my chances"?
Sure, that's one way to put it.

~~~
giardini
It may not be to your advantage to buy a home. Once you do, you're tied
forever to the local economy. Ofttimes once many people move to an area and
buy homes at artificially-inflated prices, the local economy tanks and
everyone is stuck with their overpriced home. Look at the people in cities (in
Montana, North Dakota, West Texas) caught up in the fracking boom - they're
stuck with thousands of overpriced homes now.

If you rent, you can move easily to an area that is growing.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=buying+a+home+is+not+worth+i...](https://www.google.com/search?q=buying+a+home+is+not+worth+it&client=opera&hs=nnT&channel=suggest&gbv=2&sei=JMnjWOm1DIis0gK3yrq4BQ&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1)

~~~
BeetleB
>Ofttimes once many people move to an area and buy homes at artificially-
inflated prices, the local economy tanks and everyone is stuck with their
overpriced home.

At other times, a city grows so fast and rents go up so much in a few years
that a house shields you from it.

I bought my house "late" (i.e. when prices were on an increasing curve). Less
than 3 years later, too many 2 bedroom apartments charge more for rent than my
much bigger house. If I were to sell now, I'd make a profit, even after you
account for real estate fees, etc.

Obviously, my case is not the norm. But neither is your scenario.

>[https://www.google.com/search?q=buying+a+home+is+not+worth+i...](https://www.google.com/search?q=buying+a+home+is+not+worth+i..).

Oh, please! The first rule of Google searching is: Do not ask it to return
what you are looking for!

------
ourmandave
_So, is college still worth it? In the most simplistic terms, yes.

Let's look back at homeownership. Attending a four-year college — even if you
borrow, and even if you do not graduate — still increases your chances of
owning a home, compared to people who never enroll._

But if the new economy demands that workers have the ability to flow to job
opportunities (like dragging-n-dropping them on a spreadsheet) then home
ownership is an anchor.

~~~
CodeCube
Remote working _needs_ to become a standard practice. It's the only way to
escape the neverending rise in housing in places like SF, and give people the
ability and stability to settle down in a place they love, raise a family, and
invest in their housing.

Think about all of the coming job losses to automation ... what if high
earning tech workers could stay in their communities, and spread some of that
SV economy around.

~~~
rplst8
More people need to realize this. Not only does it allow people to put down
roots and let local economies everywhere grow, think of the benefit of getting
all those cars off the roads. Less CO2, less traffic, less need for new roads
(a big CO2 producer on it's own).

If policy makers really wanted to make a dent in fixing our problems,
subsidizing remote work positions (within US borders) would be a huge benefit.

------
enobrev
This article and thread reminds me of how lucky I was for being a stubborn
idiot after graduating high school.

I, too, was told I was too smart to skip college and that I'd be wasting my
life. And since I graduated HS at seventeen, my insistent immigrant mother was
able to dump me into the local university regardless of my feelings about
taking a year off. And, so, I partied my ass off every day and dropped out
after the first semester. Mom wasn't happy, so I was allowed temporary
quarters until I found a job, and then I was off to find an apartment, and
that semester was all mine to pay off.

A year later I found myself with a shitty job downtown (back room at a
clothing store) and art school (graphic design). I lucked into a job doing IT
and on-site tech support (managing DOS servers and clients), and by nineteen I
decided all the adults were full of shit, dropped out of art school and moved
to NYC.

It was hard. Lots of work; Lots of hustle; Lots of failures and bad days; All
along with the occasional fear that I'd made the wrong choice by skipping
college, as I saw a few of my friends who had gone to college get to about
where I was in my own career. They'd caught up. My head start was over; But
rarely surpassed.

At any rate, I'm 38, back home in Chicago where the price of housing is far
more reasonable than the cities I've lived in (NYC, Seattle, Los Angeles),
working 100% remotely, and just bought a house. As for the stats mentioned in
this article, my wife really made the cut as a 36-year-old bartender who also
didn't finish college.

I definitely feel like I missed out on something important by skipping school.
But my career hasn't suffered for it, and I'm not sad I missed out on paying
for it. And I'm pretty sure spending my twenties in NYC made up for whatever I
might have missed, socially.

------
cryoshon
peep these stats: [https://trends.collegeboard.org/student-aid/figures-
tables/f...](https://trends.collegeboard.org/student-aid/figures-
tables/federal-student-loan-default-rates-sector-over-time)

this is what system failure in the making looks like. look at those
percentages who are still in default. even if people aren't in default, the
cost of paying off their loans is stifling their economic livelihood.

here is the lasting consequence of student debt: poverty

poverty precludes home ownership, marriage, reinvestment into the economy, and
casual consumption. the US has dug its own grave by rejecting its obligation
to provide education to its citizenry.

loan forgiveness would solve these problems somewhat, but honestly the ship
has sailed. millenials will continue to be poorer indefinitely.

------
akeck
I started at a "small liberal arts school," but had to leave early. I then
started an IT career while living at home and somehow had the good sense to
pay off the loans from my aborted college career. Then degree requirements
started to kick in on IT positions, so I went to night school to finish my
B.S. Because I could only handle one class per semester on top of full time IT
work, my degree inadvertently ended up being pay-as-you-go. I graduated a bit
exhausted, but debt free. Younger friends who did their four year degrees in
the same time frame essentially pay an extra rent payment each month. It's
crushing them.

------
Pica_soO
The real costs are not even visible, the iceberg of debt is killing other
risky behavior (like entrepreneurship). You do not build a company in a
garage, if you are already in to your chin with debt. Any risky move, be it
political or in your job, will be well thought through and in doubt, be
aborted, because you "know" where risky decisions get you.

------
Prego
But what would the lasting consequences of forgiving 1 Trillion US$ of student
debt be?

