"I, Breadwinner? - View of Debt from the Left"

Your dad had a job, a wife, a house. You've got loans and fear of commitment. Hello, manhood. December 21st, 2004 11:55 AM.

Don't worry about the loans. I'm doing good, Dad, and it's gonna stay that way. Bud Fox [Charlie Sheen] in Oliver Stone's Wall Street.

When I started college, I needed and wanted funds—for an apartment, a car, a girlfriend, alcohol, and of course, tuition. Conveniently, the dorms and lecture halls were strewn with credit card applications, which are as much a part of the university experience as Wednesday-morning hangovers. The plastic loan sharks beckoned with low monthly payments and generous credit lines. It was an offer few of us could refuse.

Naturally, credit cards, with their usurious interest rates, were just the start. Student loans, a fact of life for nearly every red-blooded (as opposed to blue-blooded) American, were a much bigger deal. And the bonus was you could begin paying them back after graduation or, at any rate, in the distant future. It wasn't my problem, I reasoned. It was the problem of some future version of myself. Screw him.

Thus was a Matterhorn of debt created. But as I morphed from a twentysomething into a thirty-nothing, the realization began to dawn: Will the supersized student loans and maxed-out credit cards stay with me until the bitter end? Will I spend the rest of my life barely making rent, forever beholden to myriad creditors? Will I be able to purchase a home? Will I be solvent enough to provide, God help me, for a family? Will, in other words, there be consequences to an early life of profligate borrowing?

Well, yeah. "As a group, young adults underestimate how long it will take to repay the debt," said Jill Norvilitis, an associate professor of psychology at Buffalo State University, who has studied collegiate debt.

For many young men beginning their stroll through adulthood, debilitating indebtedness spawns a problem that goes beyond the figures on a bank statement. It's the growing sense that you won't be able to live the kind of life you hoped, the kind of life you grew up expecting. "It's incredibly depressing," said Paula Langguth Ryan, an author and lecturer on bankruptcy. "It's emasculating. They wonder, 'How did my parents do this? I can't possibly do this. How can I tell my father that I'm so far over my head I can't buy any presents this Christmas?'

"You get onto that roller coaster of paying off the debt, but it still keeps going up," Ryan added. "You're just spinning your wheels and huge frustration mounts. 'How can I tell the person I am dating that I am this far in debt?' "

Eric Heidt, 33, a Manhattan architect, just refinanced his student loans. Now the payments are manageable, but they're also eternal. "It's going to take me a lifetime to take care of it."

Heidt is living out an economic reality that his father might scarcely recognize. "Buying a house is pretty much out of reach," he said. "My parents had a bunch of kids, they bought houses, and here I am living in a 12-by-16 room with a stranger and I'm not saving any money. There's something wrong."

The lives of young adults, male and female, have changed over the past few decades. For one, fewer of us are getting married in our twenties and even thirties. Figures from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey show that, among 30- to 34-year-olds, the marriage rate in 2003 was four times lower than it was in 1970. Among 20- to 24-year-olds, 75 percent of women had never been married—compared to 36 percent in 1970—and 86 percent of men had never been married—compared to 55 percent in 1970. It's just not an essential part of how young men see their post-graduation life these days.

According to a 2002 Rutgers University study, young men are reluctant to marry for several reasons—they think it will require too many changes and compromises; they aren't confronted with social pressures to make the leap; they can just as easily live with a woman as marry her; and, to put it quite simply, they would rather enjoy the single life for as long as humanly possible. "Some of these men have spent a good part of their early adult years living with parents, roommates, or alone," the study's authors wrote. "They have become accustomed to their own space and routines. They enjoy the freedom of not having to be responsible to anyone else."

But the study also cites several financial reasons for putting off the marriage decision. Young men fear divorce and the financial risks it would bring, including child support. And most would like to purchase a house before taking the vows.

It's clear that young people aren't buying homes at the same rate as previous generations. Even though interest rates have plummeted to historic lows in recent years, causing a surge in home ownership across the country, the number of home buyers under 45 has remained steady nationwide since 1980. In New York City, only the lucky few can afford to purchase property. The white picket fence carries an entirely too costly price tag. We are a far more transitory generation, picking up and moving from apartment to apartment, job to job, relationship to relationship, city to city—all while being followed by the black cloud of the financial choices of our late teens and early twenties.

This wasn't what our parents had in mind for us. Many young men grew up hearing their fathers lecture on the importance of financial stability, business success, and home ownership. The thrust of these soliloquies was that if you make the right choices you won't have any problems. If I did it, so can you, son. But there was a caveat: Don't be stupid with your cash. (Also: You'll get none from me.) Implicit in all this was the suggestion that foolishness with money equals weakness. Debt was a moral deficiency. It's not the way a man conducts himself.

Easy for them to say, we thought. They didn't grow up in the age of easy credit. The credit card is just 40 years old, and it wasn't until the 1980s that a young person could get one without a signature from a parent. They didn't have to struggle to pay for an education. College is now hugely expensive—and a required step on the pathway of American citizenship. Avoid the university, we are told, and you'll wind up as a telemarketer. (You probably will anyway.) They didn't have to carry debt. We do. It's part of our life today.

"You have to remember, in the past, credit wasn't in common use," said Ryan. "You didn't have people slipping a credit application into the books you are buying at the college bookstore. Back then, nobody borrowed on credit. Bankruptcy carried a huge stigma. You would literally sell everything you had of value to repay your debts. You often knew your creditor—it was the butcher or the plumber. Now creditors are faceless."

The average man doesn't think about the problems of debt until the first bad credit report prevents him from buying a car or obtaining a mortgage (both of which, of course, would grant him the luxury of more debt). That's when he feels the sting. That's when his life begins to feel ill-considered and wasteful. He curses himself for taking that trip to Jim Morrison's grave on collegiate plastic. He kicks himself for enrolling in two semesters of Hungarian instruction, a beautiful language no doubt, but about as useful to him today as a hole in the cranium. Indeed, at times like these his entire college education looks like a waste of money.

"It's painful," said Barry Glassman, a certified financial planner who counsels law students. "If you don't make those monthly interest payments, you get a horrible credit rating and it goes on your permanent record. It's part of that anchor that is dragging you down. I see it with law students who I think would be great in the public sector. But they can't afford it. As a financial planner I can't see the numbers working. It forces people to take jobs they wouldn't normally take.

"It's tough to think long-term when there are so many pressing issues month to month," he said. "You cannot fathom buying a house when you are trying to make a $400 payment every month."

The problem is heightened if you have trouble finding a job in this time of fewer opportunities. "It's especially hard on people who are trying to get established, trying to get their foot in the door," said Gregory Kuhlman, director of the personal counseling program at Brooklyn College. "If you already have a decent job, you might be nervous, but it doesn't hit you like it does if you are pounding the pavement for six months."

At this point in the saga, the typical young person might feel a little resentment, particularly when he reviews his parents' history and decides that they had it easy. They had no trouble finding decent work and buying that first home. The system then in place was designed to give them a good chance to achieve a chunk of the American dream, however they defined it. The system now in place rewards those wise folks among us who at age 19 had the foresight to worry about how their financial statement would look at age 30. All 10 of them.

The solution is to begin chipping away at your debt burden. "The only way to empower yourself and take the power away from the debt is to face up to it," said Ryan. And quit charging—anything. Chuck your cards out the window, she suggested. Detach yourself from a way of living that depends on the "drug" of easy credit, said Ryan.

In my experience, I saw that things have a way of improving over time. I slowly dug myself out of the hole. I was aided by the fact that I wasn't able to accumulate more debt, even if I wanted to. Incremental increases in my salary enabled me to pay off my early-college credit cards. I made peace with the banks that issued my student loans and began paying restitution to them. In short, I figured out a way to manage my debt, which is, after all, the most any of us can hope for in the worker's paradise of 21st-century America. Like Michael Jordan on the basketball court, the average American's debt cannot be stopped; it can only, with luck and fortitude, be contained.

What an irritating article.

On the contrary, probably the one Voice article that I can dig. I am this guy, other than not being a namby-pamby silk-slipper-wearing latte-sipping liberal puss with a marginally useful existence working for the Village Voice.

Well OK I am not this guy. But his financial situation, I dig. Did borrow heavily for the college education, the grad school education, the house, the vehicle; will be creditor-owned for the rest of my life. And it ain't easy waiting for that next raise that will, this time for certain, get me over the hump with the credit cards.

My generation has a different spin on these things, I reckon. I'd wager that most of us do grasp the fact that if we party now we'll pay later, but maybe we don't bank on "later" actually coming around. The writer's comments about our transiency in life are dead-on: it's as though many of us don't expect to stick around this life long. I myself don't reckon I'll be here much past forty, the way I smoke. We better do what we got to do today, which includes placing the correct priority on financial integrity... Which may not be a high priority...

Bottom line is, you can't take it with you. What's more important: squatting on top yer bill-stuffed mattress, or spending money on good drink and good friends to make you and other people happy? I don't buy much for myself personally but I do have the reputation for being a generous spender when it comes to other folks...

Ahhhhhh. I don't object to living for the day, but I don't like to live under the black cloud of debt, either. Fortunately for me, my wife is the same way. Don't get me wrong, we can be very extravagant with ourselves and with others. We take nice vacations, and treat ourselves fine. If I want something materially, my wife will often let me indulge myself.

But we have our life structured in such a way that, if one of us got hit by a train and crippled, or lost our job or whatever, we could pull back, get rid of our magazine subscriptions, live on macaroni and cheese, stop eating out and vacationing, go down to one care or whatever to get by without having creditors on our case.

We don't have cell phones. We don't have cable. (We do have DSL...my priority!)

What I found irritating about that article was the implication that people had no choice about being in debt, and that is, to a point true. But unless you have big hospital bills or things like that, you DO have a choice.

There is a choice about how much debt you incur. My feeling is, once you make a choice, it is yours, and you can think about it and ruminate on it and agonize on it if you want, but...bottom line is...it is your choice. I made the choice to go to a State College instead of Harvard or Yale. I made a choice to buy a Saturn instead of a BMW or SUV. I made a choice to have DSL, but not to have Cable TV or a Cell Phone.

Hehe, one thing is constant...when young and partying, NONE of us ever bank on "later" actually coming around! It's like that 17 year old guy in the prime of his life: "Yeah, I'll jump off the 5th story hotel roof into the pool...won't that be bitchin..."

And it usually is, until you miss or land on someone. And that is life. And I suspect it was that way in the times of the Romans, and will be that way 1000 years from now.

Those, too. :) Even though we like to imagine that those are very important fields that gosh, we can't do without government subsidizing. Many scientists were inspired by science fiction writers with English degrees. If we take it to the nth degree of separation, I'm sure we would be governmentally subsidizing the real estate brokers who sold the land to the parents of the teachers who taught the English to the writers who inspired the mathematicians and theoretical physics professors who developed the A-bomb. Hell, we probably DO subsidize the real estate brokers who sold the land to the parents of the teachers who taught the English to the writers who inspired the mathematicians and theoretical physics professors who developed the A-bomb.

But government shouldn't be in the education business, period. If it makes sense to educate people in a field, banks and businesses will provide. Government funding has done nothing but turn out whopper-floppers with the ability to discuss Marx and Sartre.

I'm sure there will be those who argue that government funding did x or y, and it's important to do x or y, but would x or y have happened WITHOUT that funding? If the market wanted it, if enough of the American people wanted it, yeah!

You're right, we do susbidize real estate brokers -- indirectly, by allowing tax deductions on mortgages.

You have too much faith in "the market." The market, among other things, is a machine. And it's up to us to put that machine to good use.

At present time we live in a perilous age in which America's dominance will be plowed under unless we muster the will to educate the young. The "market" makes no distinction between the U.S. and any other country. It will simply function as it has always functioned, with capital seeking the lowest costs of production and investment seeking out new technologies.

You see complaints about "the market" all the time on this board, including illegal immigration, outsourcing and H1Bs. That is the darker side of the market for the U.S. and these problems will only increase unless we act.

In regards to funding liberal arts majors, I tend to think that most of them find niches somewhere. Either they go into sales of some kind or take jobs in bookstores. Do they need a BA to do these jobs? No. But I'm of the mind that no education is ever wasted.

You are correct in saying that my perspective on worthless subjects is rather subjective. Holding a degree in political science and a law degree, I do happen to see them as particularly worthless. I saw hundreds of history and sociology majors turned out of college to go on to do jack with those degrees. But my favorite worthless major was a deputy county clerk who was bitter because she'd studied BOTANY and sealing land records had nothing to do with it.

However, your diatribe is misdirected. You think I'm merely against liberals and liberal-producing ecuational programs, but actually, I am against government subsidizing education in EVERY subject. I don't have a problem with liberals dominating any field--journalism, law, etc. I just won't pay them for it. I merely point out that those programs are the WORST drain on education resources, tax dollars that would be better spent by people out of their pockets, instead of on public schools...especially schools with tenured instructors.

If you want to tell me I'm wrong because educations are valuable, well, new cars are valuable, too. I don't see government buying one for poor folks or giving no-interest loans for those. If you want to tell me knowledge in varied liberal arts fields is valuable, spiffy. I agree. I'll buy the education I want, and you buy what you want, and we'll be happy about it. But don't tax me so a bunch of schmuck professors can act like Marxists while cashing government checks and indoctrinating young skulls o' mush.

Actually, you'd probably get a far lesser number of unproductive lawyers and historians and writers out there, because then the market would have to bear them instead of the taxpayers. Certainly there would be those lawyers and historians and writers who were lawyers and historians and writers because they "could afford to indulge in those pursuits," but in a free-market system, those are likely to be the folks that actually ARE the best and the brightest, as opposed to what we have right now. Now, any dumbass who doesn't fall asleep through the finals and the LSAT can get a poli sci/history/English degree, go on to graduate from some low-end law school, and become an ambulance chaser who'll sue at the merest hint of legal privilege. The same is true as to the difficulty of getting one of those undergrad degrees alone, though after you get out and try to USE those degrees, odds are better that you'll have to get a productive job.

You have too much faith in "the market." The market, among other things, is a machine. And it's up to us to put that machine to good use.

---Fine. But why is it that my faith is misplaced, while others' faith in government funding for education isn't? What has government ever done right that I should trust IT over the market?

At present time we live in a perilous age in which America's dominance will be plowed under unless we muster the will to educate the young. The "market" makes no distinction between the U.S. and any other country. It will simply function as it has always functioned, with capital seeking the lowest costs of production and investment seeking out new technologies.

---Yes, and we see what the market has done. The U.S. has subsidized people in areas that aren't needed, and we desperately need homegrown engineers and mathematicians, but because it's easy to get cash for ANYTHING, we don't have them. We have liberal arts majors. If the market was a free one, NOT a government-influenced one, many wouldn't waste time with degrees that don't pay off.

You see complaints about "the market" all the time on this board, including illegal immigration, outsourcing and H1Bs. That is the darker side of the market for the U.S. and these problems will only increase unless we act.

---In fact, I think those areas make MY point, and you're right, we should act, in the way I suggest--by cutting federal education funding entirely. Outsourcing and illegal immigration are largely due to the fact that many college-degreed people don't think they should mow lawns or cut crops. That doesn't mean they won't work, but God forbid manual labor is involved if they have a history degree. And H1-Bs are usually for labor where there is a distinct shortage--science and math majors which would people would otherwise be incentivized into by the market!

In regards to funding liberal arts majors, I tend to think that most of them find niches somewhere. Either they go into sales of some kind or take jobs in bookstores. Do they need a BA to do these jobs? No. But I'm of the mind that no education is ever wasted.

---Look, "no education is ever wasted" is an emotion-driven cliche like "if it saves only one life, it's worth it." I can't refute it, because then I'm a meanie, but I can point to the actual choices we would be forced to make if we made policy decisions based upon it. If 'no education is ever wasted,' why don't we have government give any education level you want away for FREE? I mean, it'd be great if shop mechanics could defend their doctoral thesis on Camus while they're changing your plugs, or if pool cleaners could dissect the frogs they fish out of your drain, but societally, it's inefficient and would cost a ton. We are WASTING PUBLIC DOLLARS on things we don't need. And we're driving young Americans away from the education and skills we do need.

I think that the GI Bill might have been part of the rebound from what was a normal post-war depression, in a Keynesian sort of way, but it was a government payout program. It prepared a group of people that would have been typical Americans--farmers, merchants, factory workers, etc.--to become the white-collar and technically educated employees that the Ivy-Leaguers then running the country preferred. But it wasn't the reason for the postwar boom here, just as government wasn't the reason the world dug its way out of the Great Depression.

The reason for the American boom was a combination of the cyclical nature of the world economy, worldwide repopulation, and European and Asian industrial decimation as a result of the war. And I don't believe the GI Bill did anything to ensure that the U.S. will continue that dominance. I am happy that those soldiers got an extra benefit on a personal level, but I don't think it served the country any better than sending the WWI soldiers an advance bonus check would have. In fact, the latter might have been a better choice, because at least the soldiers would have chosen what to do with the money instead of the government.

You do realize that arguing economics with a libertarian is like arguing pot laws with someone for decriminalization.

So let me cut to the chase -- the debate centers around the problem of what should the government fund for the good of the people and the nation?

On the far left of that debate we have folks yelling everything, anything! And on the far right there are people shouting, Nothing! It's my money! The market is always right!

I like to believe that I'm somewhere in the middle. And that we should use reason and compassion to make those choices. That puts me in a difficult position, since it's hideously hard to muster a passionate argument for moderation. You don't see people marching for moderation or carrying placards that proclaim: Moderation Now!

I just happen to think that those people who have a talent and a desire for a thing, should be encouraged to pursue that field. I also believe that the market is amoral (not immoral) and it's up to us to put that powerful machinery to good use. And, that it doesn't benefit us as a country to have an underclass of desperately poor.

So, let the flaming begin.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.