LOL @ Boomers

• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476804 wrote:I support neither. My support nor lack there of changes neither of the two items above.
  
  I don't support the masses as it relates to the definitions of generations. I referenced their acceptance of such definition to give a more descriptive explanation of such definition.
  
  ...but it's O.K. You should continue to include all 80 and 90 year olds as Baby Boomers so it lends to you being more assertive with your generalizations.:thumbup:

  I consider anyone above age 40 responsible for the destruction of the country. Last time I checked, 80 and 90 is above 40.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476820 wrote:I consider anyone above age 40 responsible for the destruction of the country. Last time I checked, 80 and 90 is above 40.

  I have not nor will I ever question that you believe that. It's your means of communicating fautl of any and all people seemingly incorrectly labeled by generation that draws my amusement.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1476855 wrote:I have not nor will I ever question that you believe that. It's your means of communicating fautl of any and all people seemingly incorrectly labeled by generation that draws my amusement.

  I'm glad you have the luxury of being amused in the fact of crushing deficits, crushing student loan debt, and crushing unfunded promises.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1476763 wrote:..and you know that the whole generation cant handle truthfulness? My, that's an impressive generalization seeing how you don't even know which generation that is.

  Wait, could he not use the same defense of implied opinion that you used earlier in this thread?
  
  - Curious in Akron
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Con_Alma;1475551 wrote:Why do so many kids take loans out for living expenses?

  Because the jobs that used to exist to help students pay for living expenses are now gone. You need a place to live and food to eat. Summer internships have gone the way of the dodo and many schools are cutting on-campus employment opportunities during the school year.
  
  I know that every job I had during my four years of college is gone. ODOT internships - gone. County engineer internships - gone. Plant internships - well the plant is gone so they aren't employing anyone. Even McDonald's isn't keen on hiring someone they know will just be around for 3 months.
• Sage

  

  lol boomers are a fucking joke. agreed.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1476885 wrote:Wait, could he not use the same defense of implied opinion that you used earlier in this thread?
  
  - Curious in Akron

  Absolutely.
• Con_Alma

  Manhattan Buckeye;1476929 wrote:Because the jobs that used to exist to help students pay for living expenses are now gone. You need a place to live and food to eat. Summer internships have gone the way of the dodo and many schools are cutting on-campus employment opportunities during the school year.
  
  I know that every job I had during my four years of college is gone. ODOT internships - gone. County engineer internships - gone. Plant internships - well the plant is gone so they aren't employing anyone. Even McDonald's isn't keen on hiring someone they know will just be around for 3 months.

  Even if the jobs still existed, I think it's foolish to borrow for ordinary living expenses.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1476881 wrote:I'm glad you have the luxury of being amused in the fact of crushing deficits, crushing student loan debt, and crushing unfunded promises.

  None of those things will magnified continue because I find amusement in your posts.
  
  The crushing student loan debt was a calculated risk with no guarantee. Some people chose poorly and the risk is biting them in the rear.
• O-Trap

  

  Sage;1477147 wrote:lol boomers are a fucking joke. agreed.

  Holy shit! I thought you were dead!
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1477154 wrote:None of those things will magnified continue because I find amusement in your posts.
  
  The crushing student loan debt was a calculated risk with no guarantee. Some people chose poorly and the risk is biting them in the rear.

  Suppose I told you to pick a number between 1 and 5, thus giving you a choice. You choose 4. I tell you the number was actually 7.
  
  Did you have the capability of saying 7? Sure. Did you have any reason to say 7, though? Of course not, because I told you to pick a number between 1 and 5.
  
  That's the choice of going to college. You're told that the only good choice is to go to college. It's not pitched as a calculated risk. It's pitched as a sure-fire investment by parents, teachers, guidance counselors, employers, etc.
  
  So when it doesn't turn out to be a sure-fire investment, do you blame the person who lied about the parameters of the choices or the person who chose based on the parameters given?
  
  More simply, do you blame the wrong answer on the person who didn't pick 7, or do you blame the person who lied about the number being between 1 and 5?
• gut

  O-Trap;1477224 wrote: So when it doesn't turn out to be a sure-fire investment, do you blame the person who lied about the parameters of the choices or the person who chose based on the parameters given?

  And when the used car salesman tells me that lemon is a great buy? It's his fault if I flush my money down the toilet?
  
  Although I do agree with you about irresponsibility of the guidance counselors, etc. Which is why it was so shameful to see Romney (or was it whats his name?) torched for suggesting college isn't the path to success for everyone.
  
  I don't expect 18-yr olds to have the savvy to make that tough ROI decision, but they are old enough to know better. I certainly knew better than to pursue a degree in art history from Columbia. It is, again, the stupid people that are making the bad choices and I'm not an advocate of lowering the bar of responsibility.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1477240 wrote:And when the used car salesman tells me that lemon is a great buy? It's his fault if I flush my money down the toilet?

  Um ... yeah. If he deceived you, it is indeed his fault.
  

  gut;1477240 wrote:Although I do agree with you about irresponsibility of the guidance counselors, etc. Which is why it was so shameful to see Romney (or was it whats his name?) torched for suggesting college isn't the path to success for everyone.

  I know a few dozen who are walking examples of that, so yeah, it was dumb to be on his case about saying that. He was right.
  

  gut;1477240 wrote:I don't expect 18-yr olds to have the savvy to make that tough ROI decision, but they are old enough to know better.

  Know better about what? Whether or not to go to college? Hell, we were told we should ALL go to college and pick a focus "that interests us." We were told to learn about what we loved. And there's nothing inherently wrong with doing that, but what we weren't told was that it would make careers more difficult, particularly in light of having this hefty school loan.
  
  An 18-year-old has no frame of reference on whether or not college is a sound investment, let alone what college and what study. He's old enough to know better if he's given the facts.
  
  However, if he's been told the number is between 1 and 5 the last two years of his high school career by everyone he knows and trusts, I'm not sure how anyone would suggest he should know that it's really 7.
  

  gut;1477240 wrote:I certainly knew better than to pursue a degree in art history from Columbia. It is, again, the stupid people that are making the bad choices and I'm not an advocate of lowering the bar of responsibility.

  Working in an industry that is flush with scam artists and thieves, I have got to tell you that they wish more people were like you. They could hoodwink people all day long and convince the people that it was their own fault for buying anything.
  
  A bad choice cannot always be known prior to being made. If every respectable "adult" in your life tells you that something is so, and you're just turning 18, you have no reason to believe every one of them is lying to you.
  
  Make no mistake, I'm not advocating student loans being forgiven or forcing college to be less expensive or anything like that. I'm simply saying that being scammed is not the scammed person's fault if they'd had no reason to be skeptical.
• gut

  O-Trap;1477243 wrote: Make no mistake, I'm not advocating student loans being forgiven or forcing college to be less expensive or anything like that. I'm simply saying that being scammed is not the scammed person's fault if they'd had no reason to be skeptical.

  Yes, you are lowering the bar. Such things are so important that there is simply no excusing ignorance. None. It's a critical life decision, and even at 18 it is not a decision people are incapable of or should be absolved of.
  
  We have to stop making excuses for laziness/stupidity. If that sounds harsh, then it is due to an entitlement complex.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1477224 wrote:Suppose I told you to pick a number between 1 and 5, thus giving you a choice. You choose 4. I tell you the number was actually 7.
  
  Did you have the capability of saying 7? Sure. Did you have any reason to say 7, though? Of course not, because I told you to pick a number between 1 and 5.
  
  That's the choice of going to college. You're told that the only good choice is to go to college. It's not pitched as a calculated risk. It's pitched as a sure-fire investment by parents, teachers, guidance counselors, employers, etc.
  
  So when it doesn't turn out to be a sure-fire investment, do you blame the person who lied about the parameters of the choices or the person who chose based on the parameters given?
  
  More simply, do you blame the wrong answer on the person who didn't pick 7, or do you blame the person who lied about the number being between 1 and 5?

  
  That's a stretch. If someone is telling you you are guaranteed to be able to be employed and in such a manner that servicing your debt is a non-issue.....then yo are a fool for blindly accepting that.
  
  Even so, even if there are multiple vocational opportunities, it doesn't justify going into debt for ordinary living expenses. The ability to pay for the debt doesn't make it justifiable financially.
  
  It's like getting a loan on a depreciating asset....but worse!
  
  When you sign the loan papers it is you I would blame....not anyone who told you anything else.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1477243 wrote:
  Know better about what? Whether or not to go to college? Hell, we were told we should ALL go to college and pick a focus "that interests us." We were told to learn about what we loved. And there's nothing inherently wrong with doing that, but what we weren't told was that it would make careers more difficult, particularly in light of having this hefty school loan....

  
  Have no problem with what you were told above. The obligation is on you to determine if you have the money to pay for it or not. If you don't someone else isn't gong to do it for you.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I just dropped $110 at Ruth's Chris last night, like a baus. On myself! Fuck.
  
  Wrong thread?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "it doesn't justify going into debt for ordinary living expenses."
  
  What else are you supposed to do if you are a student?
  
  1) Not eat and live like a homeless person
  
  2) Find a job that pays for expenses, yet doesn't hinder studies
  
  3) Mooch off of your parents
  
  4) Borrow
  
  Most will agree that (1) is not the best idea if studying for a degree, (2) might have been option decades ago, but hasn't been for some time*, (3) may be an option for some, but not the majority of people - leaving (4).
  
  *I worked each summer of my four years in college and lived at home. The amount I netted after FICA/taxes paid for about 25% of my living expenses/per annum while being a student. I don't think that figure has improved much in the last 20 years.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1477306 wrote:"it doesn't justify going into debt for ordinary living expenses."
  
  What else are you supposed to do if you are a student?
  
  1) Not eat and live like a homeless person
  
  2) Find a job that pays for expenses, yet doesn't hinder studies
  
  3) Mooch off of your parents
  
  4) Borrow
  
  Most will agree that (1) is not the best idea if studying for a degree, (2) might have been option decades ago, but hasn't been for some time*, (3) may be an option for some, but not the majority of people - leaving (4).
  
  *I worked each summer of my four years in college and lived at home. The amount I netted after FICA/taxes paid for about 25% of my living expenses/per annum while being a student. I don't think that figure has improved much in the last 20 years.

  Option 2 is often discouraged in graduate school. Furthermore, in a world with a shitty economy and high unemployment...which has been America since December 2007...more than half a decade at this point (which is just mind numbing in its absurdity)...it genuinely is not easy to obtain a job in a college town.
  
  I'd say the other option is to join the Reserves/Guard but it's not like everyone gets in there either!
• Con_Alma

  Manhattan Buckeye;1477306 wrote:"it doesn't justify going into debt for ordinary living expenses."
  
  What else are you supposed to do if you are a student?
  
  ...

  How did you survive when not in school? How did you eat?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ^ Indeed, with the demilitarization they aren't taking anyone with a pulse anymore, and certainly not in the Reserves. My friends that are still in the military are very grateful that they are still employed.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Con_Alma;1477310 wrote:How did you survive when not in school? How did you eat?

  Student loans. I had a full tuition schollie - but it didn't cover room/board/insurance/transportation. I don't know the exact figure, but it was between $15,000-$20,000 of loans due on graduation, and that was just my undergrad which was 20 years ago. Some of those loans were subsidized (meaning they didn't accrue interest prior to payments were due) and some weren't.
  
  My guess is that figure would be somewhere north of $40,000 now.
• Con_Alma

  ...then you were not able to afford secondary education at the time even with an academic scholarship.
  
  You could not evenaffor the primary needs of life...food and shelter.
  
  Taking the loan was a risk based on other factors out of your control that you would be able to provide enough value to receive compensation above and beyond your then current living expenses after graduation to enable to pay that debt off. It's a risk. It's not guaranteed and you are takingthe risk. You are on the hook. I don't know why the blame should be placed anywhere else.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  So are 95% of the population. The difference between now and then is I'm not the only person on the hook. The taxpayers are. There is no way thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of young people are paying back the loans they took out that were guaranteed by the government. Taxpayers will eat the difference.
  
  It is guaranteed. By the government.
  
  You can blame those who took out the loans, but to say the blame shouldn't be placed anywhere else ignores the culpability of the lender. Unless you don't understand credit markets at all (which I'm sure you do understand), there is a reason why lenders don't make certain loans. When GovCo got involved it doctored the market, not much different as to how Fannie/Freddie/CRA conditioned the housing market. And who is paying for that?
• Con_Alma

  Lets simplify it. You couldn't afford to eat or shelter yourself. You asked another to lend you money to do so in the hopes you could pay them back in the future. If you can't, the liability of decision was on you and it was your choice to ask for the help. It was no one elses decision.
  
  I completely understand that this will impact taxpayers. It doesn't eliminate the decision to take money not knowing if you can pay it back. It was a risk.