Student Debt: “Growing at a Remarkable Rate”

Student Debt in the U.S. Continues to Blow Up

by Philip Pilkington/ Naked Capitalism/ March 9, 2012

Perhaps the most obvious indicator that the US has become a society of debtors is the ever-expanding market for student loans. Recently clocked at $870 billion and rising quickly, this market has been a focal point for the recent Occupy movements. The White House knows that this is a key issue among potential voters and recently tried to provide some relief to debtors by placing a cap of 10% of discretionary income on the repayment of such loans – down from a previous cap of 15%. But of course placing a cap on how much needs to be repaid is hardly a solution to what appears to be a much larger problem.

Student loans are growing at a remarkable rate. Between the second and third quarter of 2011 they grew from an estimated $852m to an estimated $870 billion – that’s an increase of 2.1% in only one quarter; and this while other types of consumer debt either declined or remained flat. And even these estimates are pretty fuzzy because, as the New York Fed highlights, the market is highly complex and difficult to gauge:

Student loans support the education of millions of students nationwide, yet much is unknown about the student loan market. Relevant data are limited and, for the most part, anecdotal. Also, sources tend to focus on recent college graduates and do not reveal much information about the indebtedness of parents, graduate students, and those who drop out of school.

The rapid expansion of student debt appears to be due in large part to the increasing numbers of Americans enrolling in third-level (what Americans call “advanced”) education. This is not surprising given the slack and therefore highly competitive jobs market that doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon.

The market for student debt has also become remarkably complex. Again, the New York Fed gives us the details:

Unlike other types of household debt such as credit cards and auto loans, the student loan market is incredibly complex. Numerous players and institutions hold stakes at each level of the market, including federal and state governments, colleges and universities, financial institutions, students and their families, and numerous servicers and guarantee facilitators.

Unsurprisingly, the burden of this debt – at least, that which is counted – is falling on the shoulders of the young, as the chart below indicates.

Delinquency rates are already high and appear to be rising. Previous calculations indicated that some 10% of those with student loans should be considered delinquent. But due to the complexity of the market this is probably far too conservative an estimate and recent calculations by the New York Fed indicate that the actual figure is probably closer to 21%. That’s pretty whopping by any standard. (Continued)

Read the entire article at Naked Capitalism

Philip Pilkington is a writer and journalist based in Dublin, Ireland.

Posted in economy, Education | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Macho Man Competition

Posted in Barack Obama, elections, humor, Iran, military, politics, Republican Party, war | Tagged , | Leave a comment

BPR Quote of the Day: We Don’t Have to Follow Any Stinking Fifth Amendment!

“This is a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo.”

Charles Pierce/ Politics Blog/ Esquire.com/ March 5, 2012

Pierce (author of Idiot America) was reacting to a speech by Attorney General Eric Holder, justifying the authority of the president to assassinate American citizens without charges, trial, or judicial oversight. Holder told an audience at the Northwestern University School of Law:

“The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws…Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com interprets the administrations view of “due process” as:

the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he’s accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations.”

Image: snooperreport.com

Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I suspect the authors of the Bill of Rights thought their wording and intentions were clear. It’s hard to imagine they would have taken kindly to Eric Holder’s slippery rationalizations.

Boldface added by BPR Editor
PUBLISHED IN OPEDNEWS.COM 03/07/2012
Posted in Barack Obama, civil liberties, foreign policy, Justice, law, Quotations, Terrorism, war | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BPR Quote of the Day: There’s a Tomorrow?

“To people who think of themselves as God’s houseguests, American enterprise must seem arrogant beyond belief.  Or stupid.  A nation of amnesiacs, proceeding as if there were no other day but today.  Assuming the land could also forget what had been done to it.”  

Barbara Kingsolver

from her 1990 novel Animal Dreams

Posted in Economics, environment, Quotations | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Advertising’s High Cost to Society! Read This Now! You’ll Like It!

 by Arlen Grossman

“Advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero.”

                             –F. Scott Fitzgerald

How much commercialism are we willing to tolerate? Advertising in America continues to grow and permeate nearly every aspect of our culture. It’s hard to be or go anywhere without someone trying to sell you something.

Commercials multiply and nibble away more time from our favorite TV shows and radio stations. The internet flashes countless pop-ups and pulsating ads from every direction. Movie theaters run commercials before the trailers, newspapers run ads right on the front page, and colorful advertising covers supermarket floors and the insides of  our shopping carts.


Good luck finding the table of contents as you scan the endless pages of advertising in the front of your favorite magazine. Ads and commercials cover more and more space inside athletic stadiums, on gas station pumps, and even in public restrooms. Advertising has infiltrated schools, and product placements are surreptitiously slipped into movies and TV shows. Ad agencies are working overtime creating newer and more invasive ways of promoting their products.

“We never know where the consumer is going to be at any point in time, so we have to find a way to be everywhere,” explains Linda Kaplan Thaler, a New York ad agency executive. “Ubiquity is the new exclusivity.”

So fasten your seat belts, American consumer. Advertising in the United States has grown eighty-fold since the 1920s, with 2011 revenue predicted to be $173 billion out of a global total of $474 billion.

But is all this advertising a good or a bad thing? Last October the United Kingdom-based World Wildlife Federation and the Public Interest Research Centre tackled that question with a report titled “Think of Me As Evil? Opening the Ethical Debates in Advertising.” It presented considerable evidence that “advertising may be encouraging society to save less, borrow more, work harder and consume greater quantities of material goods,” and concluded that we as a society need to be paying more attention to these issues.

According to the report, there exists a “work-spend cycle whereby advertising heightens the expectations about the acceptable material standard of living, leading people to work longer hours in order to attain a disposable income that allows them to meet those expectations.”

The study points out that advertising encourages materialism and consumption, values detrimental to our sense of family and community, and diminishes interest in preserving the environment.

The report contains recommendations for minimizing “the negative impact that advertising has on cultural values,” and reducing “the pervasiveness of advertising, reversing the trend to communicate with us as consumers in every facet of our lives.” One of the co-authors of the study noted that usage of the word “consumer” began to eclipse the word “citizen” during the mid-1970s.

Even harsher criticism comes from Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, the Canadian magazine which helped launch Occupy Wall Street, when he describes advertising as  “the most prevalent and toxic of the mental pollutants. From the moment your radio alarm sounds in the morning to the wee hours of late-night TV microjolts of commercial pollution flood into your brain at the rate of around 3,000 marketing messages per day. Every day an estimated twelve billion display ads, 3 million radio commercials and more than 200,000 television commercials are dumped into North America’s collective unconscious.”

The growth of advertising and our consumer culture appears unending and, to this point in time, so is our tolerance of it.

PUBLISHED IN OPEDNEWS.COM 03/07/2012
Posted in Economics, economy, environment, media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why We Keep Getting Screwed

Posted in Barack Obama, Economics, economy, elections, government, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Too Rich and Powerful to Fail

Posted in Economics, economy, inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

New Sign at Your Gas Station

Posted in economy, humor | Tagged , | Leave a comment

BPR Quote of the Day: The End Result of Decades of Craziness

“The GOP isn’t just spectacularly unlucky in its menu of candidates; this is what the party has been for decades. Rick Santorum isn’t someone out of left field; he’s always been what you see now, and he was a central figure in his Senate days. All that has happened now is that the mannerisms have finally gotten to the point that the pretense of a reasonable party is no longer sustainable.”

Paul Krugman

“Looking Back With Shrillness,” Feb. 29, 2012

Posted in elections, politics, Quotations, Republican Party | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Robert Reich: The High Cost of Educating Snobs

Stop Starving Public Universities and Shrinking the Middle Class

by Robert Reich/ Feb. 29, 2012

Last week Rick Santorum called the President “a snob” for wanting everyone to get a college education (in fact, Obama never actually called for universal college education but only for a year or more of training after high school).

Santorum needn’t worry. America is already making it harder for young people of modest means to attend college. Public higher education is being starved, and the middle class will shrink even more as a result.

Over just the last year 41 states have cut spending for public higher education. That’s on top of deep cuts in 2009 and 2010. Some public universities, such as the University of New Hampshire, have lost over 40 percent of their state funding; the University of Washington, 26 percent; Florida’s public university system, 25 percent.

Rising tuition and fees are making up the shortfall. This year, the average hike is 8.3 percent. New York’s state university system is increasing tuition 14 percent; Arizona, 17 percent; Washington state, 16 percent. Students in California’s public universities and colleges are facing an average increase of 21 percent, the highest in the nation.

Sather Gate/ UC Berkley

The children of middle and lower-income families are hardest hit. Remember: The median wage has been dropping since 2000, adjusted for inflation.

Pell Grants for students from poor families are falling further behind; they now cover only about a third of tuition and fees. (In the 1980s, they covered about half; in the 1970s, more than 70 percent.)

Student debt is skyrocketing – the New York Federal Reserve Bank estimates it at $550 billion. Punitive laws enforce repayment, and it’s almost impossible to shed student loans in bankruptcy. There is no statue of limitations for non-repayment.

And yet, Santorum’s rant notwithstanding, good-paying jobs in America are coming to require a college degree. Globalization and rapid technological change are putting a premium on the ability to identify and solve new problems. A college degree is also a signal to prospective employers that a young person has what it takes to succeed.

That’s why the median annual pay of people with a bachelor’s degree was 70 percent higher than those with a high school diploma in 2009 (the latest Census data available).

But public higher education isn’t just a private investment. It’s a public good. Our young people — their capacities to think, understand, investigate, and innovate — are America’s future.

We used to understand this. During the great expansion of public higher education from the 1950s to the 1970s, tuition at public universities averaged about 4 percent of median family income (compared to around 20 percent at private universities).

Young Americans received college degrees in record numbers – creating a cohort of scientists, engineers, managers, and professionals that propelled the economy forward and dramatically expanded the middle class.

But starting in the 1980s, as in so many other areas of American life, we took a U-turn. Tuition at public universities began climbing. By 2005, it was more than 10 percent of median annual family income. Now it’s approaching 25 percent – still a good deal relative to private universities (where it’s nearly 70 percent), but high enough to discourage many qualified young people from attending.

Public higher education has been the gateway to the middle class but that gate is shutting – just when income and wealth are more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s, and when America needs the brainpower of its young people more than ever.

This is nuts.

What’s the answer? Partly to make public universities more efficient. Every bureaucracy I’ve ever been associated with (and I’ve been in some very big ones) has some fat to be trimmed. Yet universities are necessarily labor-intensive enterprises; research and teaching can’t be outsourced abroad or turned over to computerized machine tools.

Another part of the answer is to raise tuition and fees for students from higher-income families and use the extra money to subsidize medium and lower-income kids. Even now relatively few pay the official sticker price; many receive some discount proportional to family income. But this won’t solve the underlying problem, either.

A big part of the answer has to be more government support for public education at all levels. This requires more tax revenues – especially from Americans who are best able to pay.

Most Americans still believe in the ideal of equal opportunity. And most harbor the patriotic notion that we have responsibilities to one another as members of the same society.

The two principles lead to an obvious conclusion: America’s richest citizens have a duty to pay more taxes so kids from middle and lower-income families have chance to make it in America.

A pending initiative in California would raise taxes on millionaires and use the proceeds to fund public education at all levels. It’s a good idea, and it comes at the right time. Other states should follow.

Robert Reich is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton.

from RobertReich.org

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in economy, Education, inequality, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment