"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.

"if we stopped giving student loans to people who major in worthless subjects like history, sociology, and poli sci, and then go on to law school"

I'd say your list of worthless subjects is rather subjective. I find history a subject that should be required throughout K-12 along with certain required history courses throughout college. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Plus, I find history fascinating. It would be a sad world if everyone in it was some technocrat, MBA, or math or science major. There is room for all subjects in our society, in fact, it is a moral imperative. The Liberal Arts"s degree that our forefathers thought so very important as one major component to the survival of our nation. Do you slam "conservative" historians, of which there actually are many, as having studied a worthless subject? Do you find the books historians write to enlighten us about our past, European history, U.S. history, Asian history. how our country was formed, how WWI and WWII were fought, about democracy in ancient Athens, the laws of Hammurabi, the Napoleanic Code, the history of Free Republic which was recently resurrected and posted again, the history of, the history of, you get the idea, a waste of time? Do you think the history degrees that many of our "conservative" politicians have, are worthless? By the way, history includes those subjects it appears you seem to value, the history of Math, the history of all things scientific and the discoveries throughout the ages, the history of business, inventions, medicine and its break-throughs,and even the history of high tech stuff, computers, etc.

Be careful in what appears to be your desire to slam college educations unless only in those subjects you see fit for study. You leave out a whole world of endeavor and value by doing so. Music and art usually don't get you much money in life, but I would be horrified at a life that didn't include both of them, and I value those that have the expertise to convey both to us. And English, would you prefer that there have been no experts (teachers) to have taught you the King's English? While you were going through K-12, would you have wished to learn nothing from those who had the degrees to teach you about music, art, english, philosophy, you know, all those so-called worthless subjects? It appears you have some reverse form of elitism, and look down your nose at the liberal arts part of an education.

I think I know where you are coming from, as you equate the liberal arts with LIBERALS, and in a certain sense the liberal arts have oftentimes been co-opted by way too many people of the liberal persuasion. The cure would be for more conservatives to get involved in these subjects, rather than ceding them to the left. More conservatives need to become lawyers and journalists, so that we can again better combat the leftists. It's not the subject matter, it's the people who abuse their areas of expertise for political gain (like most of the MSM journalists). We must fight fire with fire, by getting more of our own kind into those fields generally sought out by the liberals. That is how they have gained control of the cities (using their poli-sci degrees); the courts (using their law degrees); the news (through their journalism degrees), while conservatives ignore those areas and pay a steep price by emphasizing only business, science, and math. Thank goodness conservatives do pursue those degrees, because we keep the engine of the economy running, but the liberals, using their chosen degrees, limit, infringe, intrude upon, and destroy our businesses and scientific endeavors, via lawsuits, propaganda through the MSM, and by rules and regulations created by too many liberal administrations of politicians, using those poli-sci degrees against us. We'd better do something fast.

At least we are getting more conservative lawyers now to go up against the environmentalist whackos, the politically correct crowd, the anti-religion nuts, etc. We desperately need more conservatives to go into areas normally the turf of the liberals in order to beat them at their own game.

I'm talking about waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when. Originally,"the flickers" (these weren't even movies on a screen,but those things one saw through a view-box,for a few brief minutes,like Little Egypt dancing at the World's Fair in Chicago in 1888)and were little more than a peepshow. The earliest of movies,shown on a screen,were base entertainment,at that time.Then,the likes of Adolph Zuckor,Louis B.Mayer,William Fox,Harry Cohn,and the Warners got into the business and things began to change rapidly! No longer were movies for the lower classes;though early movies DID indeed help immigrants to learn English and the ways,as portrayed in the movies,of America.Heck,if it wasn't for Mayer and Zuckor,America would never have had an image of itself as a collective at all!

Anyway,look at early talkies and movies through say the very early '60. Boys learned how to be suave from the likes of Cary Grant,Fred Astaire,David Niven,and many whose names you may not even know.Boys and girls learned how to kiss from watching it done on screen.People looked at how the homes of the very rich were decorated,Hollywood style,and as with clothes and hairdos and yearned to copy them in real life,as best they could.Parents were fonts of wisdom,bad behaviors only gave one grief or worse...death!Movies were a BIG thing and they greatly influenced ALL Americans!

Fast forward to today and the movies are garbage,full of technical effects,lousy acting,worse scripts,and the audiences don't know how to behave at all.

T.V. has been used as a babysitter for longer than the late '70s.

The death knell to a civilized America was the damned hippies,but the rot began to seep on a bit earlier than that.

And popular culture has actually been excruciatingly pervasive,for more than 100 years here.But we can talk about that another time.

I AM right and I'm not just saying that to put you down/win the debate/be an egotist. This is a topic I know a very great deal about and can back up every single point I made with facts.

In the early silent era,Theda Barra,who was a "nice Jewish girl",portrayed overtly seductive women.She was often shown in still photos,to promote herself and whatever movie she was in,sitting on a male corpse,or on bones,starring out at the viewer.She was the very incarnation of a succubus and as such,called a "vampire",from which the word "VAMP" was introduced into American's vocabularies.

A bit later,Rudolph Valentino stared in a movie called "THE SHIEK".Women swooned,men fumed,and teens-twentysomethings called each other "SHIEKS" and "SHEBAS"!And because of Valentino,men began to wear wristwatches,even though they made fun of him,in the beginning,for wearing one...calling him a "powder puff" and worse.

I could go on and on and on and on......but it's rather too late for me to do so right now.

You don't really add any "value" at all,by yelling at the screen.Sorry,but all you are adding,is more incivility and and gutter behavior.Yeah.......I really AM that hidebound and persnickety about such things.LOL

As for acting,I suggest you watch a LOT of old movies,because you really are quite mistaken about what good acting is. Denzel Washington isn't bad;however the names of those listed,that I recognizes,can't act their way out of a wet and torn brown bag from Gristedies!

TheLioness:

I would have hoped that it was obvious that my very general remark was obviously not meant to indicate the relative -voluntary- responsibility of a divorced man and woman. You'll have good and responsible men and women, and you'll have bad and irresponsible men and women. My comment was talking about the LAW, at least as it is applied here in New Jersey.

You've informed me that your ex is an irresponsible cad. I understand, and I commisserate. However, unless the laws are significantly different where you are than where I am, I suspect you fail to appreciate that, as a result of that irresponsibility, you have it in your power at any time to absolutely, completely, utterly destroy him. To strip from him his freedom, his wealth, his reputation, his good standing in society, and anything else you want to. That's the ways the laws are set up in this here blue state, anyway. Now, perhaps your situation was different. Perhaps you were in a situation where he had a great lawyer and you had a crappy one, and he managed to do an end run. Perhaps you weren't aware of what options you had, and your lawyer wasn't savvy enough to inform you. Or perhaps it's as simple as the laws here being tougher on the guy than where you are. But here, a man in family court, unless he's going in with Johnny Cochran, -is- essentially viewed as nothing but an open wallet. And I'll explain how in my answer to the next person who just flamed me:

nopardons:

Were my parents divorced? No.

Have I ever been married? Yes.

Here's one you didn't ask me: Have I ever been divorced? Yes. But I'm extremely lucky - I get along with my ex. And I love my daughter to death, and do everything I can to provide for her (in fact I generally get to spend about $10 a month on entertainment, the rest goes to my ex). My ex is extremely understanding if I have any reason to be late. My issues are in no way personal to me... but I also appreciate that that's because I AM EXTREMELY LUCKY. If she were, instead, a cold blooded b*tch like some of my friend's ex's have been, then she could easily be raking me over for child support, for alimony (even after less than a year's marriage, yes, I've seen it happen), and with almost no visitation rights. And I've seen guys who have to pay upwards of $250 per week for one child, again, with almost no visitation rights and to children whose mother has poisoned into hating him.

For the record, I myself pay $200 a week, and that was a voluntary agreement, but that isn't much more than what the state -absolutely required- based on the fact that I made a whopping $40,000 a year at the time of the divorce. I think the state MINIMUM was $182/week at that salary.

Now, I'm not arguing against my own responsibilities - I love my daughter and have no desire to squeeze out of them. But isn't that figure a bit ridiculously high? I mean seriously? If I'm supposed to provide for -half- of that child's upbringing, well, I don't know that many 5 year old completely healthy children who require $364/week to raise. I don't spend that much on myself as an -adult. Do you think that's reasonable as a MINIMUM? Maybe for someone who makes $100k+ a year. But $40k a year? That's almost a third of their take-home pay.

Now, I've had periods in the time since when I made less than $200/week, for various reasons. Sh*t really does happen sometimes, and it's not all because of flagrant irresponsibility. Would the State reduce the amount of $200/week for me based on that? Well, luckily, I haven't had to find out, because like I said I'm lucky to have an ex who knows that I'm doing my best. But they didn't reduce it for my friend who was paying $250/week. According to the State, only the child's standard of living matters, and if the child has gotten used to a lifestyle of $250 a week from Dad, then that's what the State says it must remain. If you're not making that much anymore, tough. And if you don't pay it, well, too bad, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, and most amazingly of all, DO NOT THINK THAT YOU WON'T STILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THAT $250 A WEEK. But wait, you ask... how is it remotely possible for someone in jail to make $250 a week? Doesn't matter, says the State. You'll owe the amount, in full, one month to the day after you're released, and if you can't pay it, back in jail you go for another year, where you can then accumulate another $10,000 worth of debt without any possibility of actually earning it. How can one possibly extricate themselves from this, even if they have the skills to get a decent job and who honestly want to pay? Well, in at least one case I know of (not a close friend of mine in this case, thank God) he can't, and he's been in jail for several years now. The mother doesn't need the money - she's got a rich daddy who spoils her. But she gets her kicks knowing he's rotting in prison. She's just that kind of person.

You don't think that's indentured servitude? I do. See, if I was still married, and I lost my job, my child's standard of living (and mine) would decrease, would they not? The State couldn't come and throw me in jail for it though. But once divorced, yes they can. And if the woman is vindictive, God help you.

You guys may all have different experiences, you may live in states with different laws, and if so, fine, we know where our disagreement comes from. But to simply assume that I need to "grow up", when I'm doing everything I can to meet my obligations to my daughter and I in fact consider that responsibility a greater priority than -anything- beyond bare sustenance for myself, is a bit presumptuous of you. And I feel that way, not because the State requires me to, but because I know it's the right thing to do. I'm not excusing fathers who don't try. But I -am- pissed off for the sake of guys I know who are doing their best and their b*tchy wives abuse the laws in order to make their lives a hell for fun and profit.

Yes, there are men who run from their responsibility. And you probably exist in a legal system where you can castrate him, incarcerate him, etc. for doing so. What I find repugnant is when women who are responsible (such as you, TheLioness) for whatever reason still get screwed despite the overwhelming force of law you've been given precisely in order to prevent deadbeat fathers from doing what they do, while simultaneously caring fathers who really are struggling and who get pretty damn difficult demands made of them from the State ($200-250/week after taxes ain't easy for everyone to earn consistently for 18 years without interruption) are then screwed to the wall by vindictive b*tchy ex-wives who abuse those laws in order to "get even" for whatever bugs them.

One of the worst cases I've seen of it is where she had an affair with some French guy, he only found out about it because she got pregnant with the other guy's kid, she ran off with his kids, and then he was expected to pay -her- $180/week when he was only making $26k a year. And then - get this - he had to pay a lawyer thousands in order to keep the State from forcing him to pay for the child of the French guy who was screwing around with after he went back to France!! (because he was married to her when she got pregnant, so it's his responsibility, so says the all-wise State)

I feel great sympathy for mothers when the father runs off and abandons their responsibilities. Seriously. But, in those cases, two things. 1) The man's crime, while significant, is passive - he's not helping as he should, but he's not actively harming either. 2) The State, at least my State, gives MASSIVE amounts of legal remedies to the woman to extract those funds from him, from garneshing wages to incarcerating him, and honestly I've never personally met a woman who couldn't get the State to go to those lengths to nail the deadbeat if she wanted to, no matter who he had as a lawyer. On the other hand, the men whose lives I've seen ripped apart by vindictive women who will run screaming to the State over a check one day late in the mail, and who abuse the law (and even deliberately lie) in order to get the State to destroy the guy, well, A) that ain't a passive crime, no ma'am, and B) the guy doesn't have a chance in hell, because as you guys have demonstrated, when a woman wails, he won't get a single ounce of sympathy or even a hearing.

Howlin:

"HorseS**T!"

Case in point.

Thus ends my extremely long rebuttal for which I'm sure I'll get flamed again.

Qwinn

1) The man's crime, while significant, is passive - he's not helping as he should, but he's not actively harming either.
____________________________________________________________

While I agree with most of your post, I take severe issue with the part above.

Speaking from personal experience...when a father abdicates his reponsibilities to his children-whether financial or otherwise-does severe harm to those children. As children, we may or may not be aware of child support issues (although it's hard to not notice) we are very aware when one of the people who are supposed to love you don't care enough to call, send birthday cards, or even visit. Kids like that often struggle later on with promiscuity, drugs and alcohol, and/or depression. These things can affect them for the rest of their lives. Just because the father isn't there beating on them with his fists or his words doesn't mean he's not causing active, lasting harm to his children.

With the child support non-payment, there are plenty of reasons why some women will not have their deadbeat ex's thrown in jail. One reason is one you pointed out...how can he pay if he's in jail? What purpose does that serve? To be vindictive, that's all. There isn't much you can do, either, if the man claims he isn't working (while getting paid under the table, or claiming less that he actually makes). How can the courts collect then? Simple, they can't.

Your dismissal of the father's crimes as passive is way off-base, my friend. You may think of it as benign neglect, but let me assure you, when it comes to fathers (or mothers) and their children, there is no such animal. Just because you don't see bruises doesn't mean kids don't hurt.

And people DRESSED UP to go to the movies,it was a social event;unlike today.They didn't talk to each other,they didn't talk at the screen,they didn't fight,and there were ushers who ejected people,if they acted up.

Fast forward to today and the movies are garbage,full of technical effects,lousy acting,worse scripts,and the audiences don't know how to behave at all.

T.V. has been used as a babysitter for longer than the late '70s.

The death knell to a civilized America was the damned hippies,but the rot began to seep on a bit earlier than that.

And popular culture has actually been excruciatingly pervasive,for more than 100 years here.But we can talk about that another time.

I think you hit the nail on the head to where society is at the point where it is today. True, we still have level minded conservatives as we did then but I think that is the point on how we have become a polarized society. "Free Love" ain't free, you could end up with STD's, AIDS, and unwanted kids, but it all falls under the old Robert A. Heinlein saying, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL)

I have to agree, although we've always had that bugbear around, he was kept in his cage for the most part until the 1960's as you put it with the development of The Pill (I think it is too easy to get), "free love" and the hippies. When I see films of hippies and the like, me being an early model X'er (born in 1966), "I just shake my fist and say in a sarcastic tone, "thanks a heap!" Although it does sound like I'm blaming someone else and in this case, well we see the rot they have caused but in my own life, I try my best to live those values we know and love to the best of my ability despite the way things are. I'm kind of encouraged on how things could turn in our favor though if we play are cards right. Maybe the hippie culture is burning itself out, true I see a lot of what I call "neo-hippie" 20 somethings but I also see plenty of proud, upstanding, moral 20 somethings too.

About the debt thing, through bad choices, bad luck or bad circumstances, I do see a need for some sort of way out for people who really need it. I can see declaring bankruptcy and getting away scot free once in someone's life although again, it should be undertaken if no other options will really work. I guess this is the populist side of me speaking.

I know myself, I have it tough and still do but I'll never "break this glass in case of fire" unless I really, really have to.

About the statement "getting Western," well, it's the first time I've heard of it although I've used "getting Medieval," "going postal," "going crazy" or even "John Wayne-ing it." Like in my last role playing gaming session, my buddy runs his character like he's Superman, I made the comment, "ain't you John Wayne-ing it a bit?"

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.