Tag Archives: student loan debt

The Student Loan Bubble – Gambling With Your Future

(SchiffGold) Have you heard? The Democrats are going to fix the student loan mess! They’ve brought up the issue in almost every  Democratic Party presidential debate. All we need is a good government program and we can easily solve this $1.64 trillion problem.

Never mind that government programs caused the problem in the first place.

The student loan bubble continues to inflate. Student loan balances jumped by $32.9 billion in the third quarter this year, pushing total outstanding student loan debt to a new record. Student loan balances have grown by 5.1% year-on-year.

Over the last decade, student loan debt has grown by 120%.  Student loan balances now equal to 7.6% of GDP. That’s up from 5.1% in 2009. This despite the fact that college enrollment dropped by 7% between 2010 and 2017, with enrollment projected to remain flat.

In a nutshell, we have fewer students borrowing more money to finance their educations.

Before the government got involved, college wasn’t all that expensive. It was government policy that made it unaffordable. And not only did it manage to dramatically drive up the cost of a college education, but it also succeeded in destroying the value of that degree. Peter Schiff summed it up perfectly:

Before the government tried to solve this ‘problem,’ it really didn’t exist.”

Peter isn’t just spouting rhetoric. Actual studies have shown the influx of government-backed student loan money into the university system is directly linked to the surging cost of a college education.

Millions of Americans carrying this massive debt burden is a big enough problem in-and-of-itself. But it becomes an even more significant issue when you realize the American taxpayer is on the hook for most of this debt. Education Secretary Betsy Devos admitted that the spiraling level of student debt has “very real implications for our economy and our future.”

The student loan program is not only burying students in debt, it is also burying taxpayers and it’s stealing from future generations.”

This is yet another bubble created by government. Despite the campaign rhetoric coming out of the Democratic Party presidential primary debates, it seems highly unlikely Congress will do what is necessary to address the growing student loan bubble. And the Democrats’ solution seems to be to simply erase the debt – as if you can just make more than $1 trillion vanish without serious implications.

Like all bubbles, this one will eventually pop.

The bottom line is that the student debt bubble will ultimately impact US markets and average Americans.

Source: ZeroHedge

The Millennial Crisis

https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/millennials-phones.jpg

There is a serious economic crisis brewing that few seem to be paying attention. According to a new survey from Zillow Group Inc. (ZG  Get Report), approximately 22.5% of millennials ages 24 through 36 are living at home with their moms or both parents, up nine percentage points since 2005  which was 13.5% and the most in any year in the last decade. Between the student loans which cannot be discharged thanks to the Clintons (to get the support of bankers) even after they find that degrees are worthless when 60% of graduates cannot find employment with such a degree and the fact that taxes have escalated to nearly doubling over the last 20 years that is predominantly state and local, the affordability of buying a home has been fading fast. Despite the fact that millennials are eager to enter the real estate market, they’re bearing the brunt of the challenge directly caused by the combination of taxes and non-dischargeable student loans.

https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-Students.jpg

Now 63% of millennials under the age of 29 cannot even afford the cost of home ownership, according to a CoreLogic and RTi Research study. The expense, in fact, is their number one reason for remaining a renter. In their research, they concluded that one-third of millennial renters reported feeling they cannot afford a down payment to buy a home. This is a sad response that is not being taken into consideration by governments.

Where home prices have not risen sharply, taxes have. First-time home buyers face ever-growing challenges to find and buy affordable entry-level homes as the economics of inefficient governments at the state and local levels have refused to reform and raise taxes to meet pension costs they promised themselves. Politicians from London to Vancouver have increased taxes to try to bring home prices down rather than looking at the problem objectively. All they are accomplishing is punishing people who have owned homes and destroying their future when home values were their retirement savings.

California and Illinois are just two major examples at the top of the list of grossly mismanaged state governments. It is this net affordability factor that has begun to encumber sales of real estate, softening prices and turning many millennials into renters rather than home buyers. Then add the rise of interest rates and we have an economic cocktail of taxes that is beginning to kill the real estate market in a slow death drip by drip. Depressions take place when the debt and real estate markets collapse – not equities and commodities. The amount of money invested in debt markets dwarfs equities, It is ALWAYS the debt market that you undermine when you want to destroy an economy.

Taxes and the rise in interest rates will further erode affordability and is beginning to slow existing-home sales in many markets already. As this trend continues, home prices and mortgage rates over the next couple of years will likely dampen sales and home price growth. There was another study conducted by Freddie Mac which also found that affordability challenges are contributing to a downtrend in young adult home ownership. Long-term, real estate prices will decline as taxes and interest rates rise. The next crop of buyers is being culled and as that unfolds, real estate cannot rise when banks also begin to curtail the availability of mortgages.

Source: by Martin Armstrong | Armstrong Economics

One Million Americans Default On Their Student Loans Each Year, Report Reveals

More than one million American student loan borrowers default on their debt each year, a new report says.

That means by 2023, approximately 40 percent of borrowers are expected to default.

That is according to a new report by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights on critical socioeconomic issues. Researchers found about 250,000 student loan borrowers see their debts go into default every quarter, and an additional 20,000 to 30,000 borrowers default on their rehabilitated student loans.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-08-21-at-8.17.45-AM-600x320.png?itok=52bgr5-n

“My results indicate that the likelihood of student loan default is positively correlated with holding other collections debt (e.g., medical, utilities, retail, or bank debt). About 59 percent of borrowers who defaulted on their student loans within four years had collections debt in the year before entering student loan repayment (compared with 24 percent among non-defaulters). Those who will default on their student loans are more likely to reside in neighborhoods that have more residents of color and fewer adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher, but a borrower’s personal credit profile is a stronger predictor of default than the neighborhood where she resides,” said Kristin Blagg, a research associate in the Education Policy Program at the Urban Institute.

The average defaulter is more likely to live in Hispanic and black neighborhoods, Blagg found. Her previous research has shown that minorities are more burdened by their education debt because their parents have a lower net wealth as well as higher rates of unemployment. These neighborhoods also have a median income of around $50,000, compared with $60,000 for non-defaulters.

The Urban Institute made a startling discovery: Those with the smallest loan balances had a higher probability of not paying off their debt. In fact, 1 in 3 people who had a student loan balance less than $5,000 defaulted within four years, compared with 15 percent of borrowers who owed more than $35,000.

This is because students who dropped out of college have less debt, but are easily burdened by debt since they do not have the benefit of a degree, said Mark Kantrowitz, a student loan expert, who spoke with CNBC.

Also, Kantrowitz said, “They often lack awareness of options for dealing with the debt, such as deferments, forbearances, income-driven repayment and loan forgiveness.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-08-21-at-8.18.11-AM.png?itok=1poxRPeG

The report then describes the relationship between a borrower’s credit profile and student loan default in a nationally representative sample of student loan borrowers, over the first four years of repayment. It found that by the time the student loan falls into the default, the borrower will see their credit score plunge by 60 points, to an average of around 550. Borrowers who stay current, usually have credit scores in the high 600s.

As we have mentioned, millennials are delaying marriage, home-buying and having kids (pretty much delaying the American dream), simply because of their gig-economy job(s) cannot cover debt servicing payments of their loans.

“Negative effects of student loan default can be wage garnishments, tax offsets, and other methods of loan collections,” said Elaine Griffin Rubin, senior contributor and communications specialist at Edvisors. “In addition, some states suspend or revoke state-issued professional licenses, and some states suspend a driver’s license because of a defaulted loan.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/unemployed-man-student-debt-1-600x338.jpg?itok=Fr3wFSVb

To make the situation worse, defaulting on student loans increases the balance, likely due to collection fees and the accumulation of interest. Kantrowitz said a borrower could expect their balance to jump by over 10 percent after default.

These myriad consequences that come with a default can be hard to recover from, Kantrowitz said.

“At best, it delays participation in the American Dream,” he said. “At worst, they are shut out permanently.”

Student debt is a crisis that many Americans will not be able to recover from. The College Board, a non-profit organization, says the average cost of a U.S. degree is $34,740 a year at a private college, minus living costs.

Graduates of the Class of 2016 owe a staggering $37,000 each in student loans. Total Student Loans Owned and Securitized, Outstanding (SLOAS) has surpassed the $1.5 trillion mark in Q2 2018, which is second only to home mortgages among categories of consumer debt and the main reason Americans’ household debt has swelled to a record high.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-08-21-at-8.19.53-AM-600x238.png?itok=8ESLU46P

Credit bubbles are all the same. It just happens that the life cycle of the student debt bubble is nearing a deleveraging period. According to both Keynesian and monetarist theory, when the student debt bubble cracks, the state should intervene directly, and bailout the millennials who made terrible life decisions in accumulating massive amounts of debt for a worthless liberal arts degree, simply because the myth of going to college would usher in a high paying job. As it has become increasingly evident, that is not the case in today’s gig-economy. The failing education system has duped millennials, they have now realized that the greatest con of all time is college.

Source: ZeroHedge

Fed Finds Wealth Advantage For College Grads Is Vanishing

Four years ago, in one of its taxpayer subsidized research papers, the San Fran Fed asked “is it still worth going to college“, looking at the trade off between the “investment” of tens of thousands of dollars in student loans relative to the pick up in earnings potential over one’s lifetime. It found that the answer is “yes” because “the value of a college degree remains high, and the average college graduate can recover the costs of attending in less than 20 years.” In other words by the time one is 42, one’s student loans will be paid off, assuming of course that one can still find a job. And, staying in this idealized world, the difference between earnings continues to grow “such that the average college graduate earns over $800,000 more than the average high school graduate by retirement age.”

Four years later, the New York decided to rerun the same analysis, which it described in a recent blog post “The College Boost: Is the Return on a Degree Fading?”, and came to a starkly bleaker conclusion. 

As DataTrek’s Nick Colas summarizes the Fed’s study, the net income and net worth benefits of a college or grad school degree are rapidly diminishing. Specifically, the NY Fed economists looked at two broad demographic cohorts (whites and African Americans), segmenting changes in expected income between those people born each decade between the 1930s and the 1980s. Their findings:

  • White workers with a 4-year degree born from the 1930s to the 1970s saw a +57–72% pickup in income over their non-college educated counterparts. Those born in the 1980s only saw a +43% improvement, however.
  • African American college grads born in the 1980s are, however, still seeing income differentials in line with older cohorts (+71% versus +66 – 76% for those born in the 1940s to 1970s).

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/BlogImage_4YrChangeExpInc_071018.png?itok=jxfejgwX

The data looks similar for those workers with a graduate degree. For white workers born in the 1980s, the differential to their peers without an advanced degree is +54%, lower than the +80–108% of older cohorts. For African Americans, the benefits of a graduate education remain consistently high (+73–125% more than those without a grad school degree) across all age groups.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/BlogImage_GradChangeExpInc_071018_0.png?itok=mZuiRRTD

Where things look really bad is when you look at total wealth differentials between the age groups. These include both financial assets and non-financial, such as home ownership.

  • On that count, white families with a college educated household member who was born in the 1980s is +42% better off for their sheepskin, versus +134–247% for those born in the 1930s to the 1980s. Moreover, the older the graduate, the better the differential.
  • The news is even worse for African American households, where those born in the 1980s are only +6% better off than their non-college educated peers. Those differences were +126% to +253% for those born in the 1940s to the 1970s.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/BlogImage_4YrChangeExpWealth_071218.png?itok=hkt_Ri06

Exactly the same thing holds true when applied to graduate degrees: earlier born households accumulate much more wealth than later ones when compared to those who did not earn such a degree.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/BlogImage_GradChangeExpWealth_071218.png?itok=e8Aft6kM

Key takeaway: to us, this looks like a solid data-driven indictment of the rising cost of US education, with its concurrent increase in student debt (and one that is vastly different from the far rosier take by the San Fran Fed in 2014). A college and/or graduate degree does mean higher wages. But it also means more educational debt, which delays both savings and home ownership.

The notion that younger demographic college graduate cohorts will deliver out sized economic growth, as their parents did when they were younger, seems suspect at best.

Source: ZeroHedge

Student Debt Bubble Expands As Parents Do More Of The Borrowing

Not so long ago, student debt was mostly the responsibility of students. That is, you paid for college with loans and then paid off those loans with the proceeds of the good job you got with an advanced education.

These days it’s a little different. The cost of higher education is soaring, the jobs available to college grads don’t pay as much, relatively speaking, as they used to, and the size of loans available to students – though huge – don’t cover the full cost of many degrees.

One might expect these changes to lead more students to work for a few years and save up, or choose a cheaper degree, or eschew college altogether (as a lot of successful people now recommend) and substitute work experience for a diploma.

Some of that is happening but apparently the biggest change is that parents have stepped in to cover the difference between what their kids can borrow and the cost of a degree. As the chart below illustrates, until just a few years ago, the average debt of students exceeded that of students’ parents. But post-Great Recession, parents have given up trying to moderate the cost of their kids’ education and started doing the borrowing themselves. They’re now taking on the majority of new debts, and the gap is widening dramatically.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Student-loans-July-18.jpg?itok=KUg1xS-4

Retirement Crisis?

So we can add student loans to the list of instances where people who once tried to control their borrowing have stopped trying and are now just going with the flow. Which means several things.

First, kids who if left to themselves and the market would probably opt for one of the aforementioned cheaper alternatives are still in high-cost, frequently low-reward degree programs, and are being sheltered from the consequences by well-meaning parents.

Second, the retirement crisis that everyone is talking about – in which people who have never saved a penny are approaching retirement age and looking at 30 years of abject poverty – is being made that much worse by parents taking on new debts at a time of life when they should be aggressively trending towards debt-free/cash-rich.

Third and most important for people who aren’t participating in this game of financial musical chairs, the eventual implosion of the student loan market – i.e., the point at which loan defaults become intolerable – will lead to a government bailout, making student loans everyone else’s problem.

But of course the government won’t raise taxes or otherwise inflict immediate consequences on the electorate. It will borrow the money and create enough new currency to cover the first few years’ interest, leaving the longer-term consequences for later years and other people.

As with all the other mini-bubbles out there, if student loans were an isolated problem in a sea of rock-solid financial behavior they’d be easily managed. But they’re just one of many time bombs set to explode shortly.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Auto-loans-July-18.jpg?itok=6BbOoMkr

Auto loans, credit cards, underfunded pensions and increasingly mortgages and home equity lines are all heading the same way domestically, while emerging market dollar debt (which dwarfs the US mini-bubbles) is just as precarious internationally.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Emerging-market-debt-April-18.jpg?itok=bsE1w3xB

The question then becomes, how many of these bursting bubbles can the US paper over before the currency markets figure out that each will be followed by another, for as far as the eye can see?

Source: ZeroHedge

The Exorbitant Cost Of Getting Ahead In Life

Some 84 percent of Americans claim that a higher education is a very or extremely important factor for getting ahead in life, according to the National Center for public policy and Higher Education.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/download%20%284%29_5.jpg?itok=9LzQ1zVi

So, it’s worth the exorbitant cost, but not everyone can pay, and outsized costs in the U.S. are giving much of the rest of the developed world the higher education advantage.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), people with a Bachelor’s Degree earn around 64 percent more per week than those with a high school diploma, and around 40 percent more than those with an Associate’s Degree. In turn, those with an Associate’s degree earn around 17 percent more than those with a high school diploma.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-07-13_10-04-48.jpg?itok=TxKmc5Xi

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York says that college graduates overall earn 80 percent more than those without a degree.

There’s also job security to consider.

Individuals with college degrees have a lower average unemployment rates than those with only high school educations. Among people aged 25 and over, the lowest unemployment rates occur in those with the highest degrees.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-07-13_10-05-20.jpg?itok=FZTQuRFK

From this perspective, it’s no surprise that students are willing to bite the bullet and take on a ton of debt to finance education.

About three-fourths of students who attend four-year colleges graduate with loan debt. And this number is up from about half of students three decades ago.

The average student loan debt for Class of 2017 graduates was $39,400, up 6 percent from the previous year. Over 44 million Americans now hold over $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, according to Student Loan Hero.

According to College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2017–2018 school year was $34,740 at private colleges, $9,970 for state residents at public colleges, and $25,620 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.

The U.S. is one of the most expensive places to go obtain a higher education, but there are pricier venues, too.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-07-13_10-06-01.jpg?itok=2ghzCyI3

If you want a free higher education, try Europe—specifically Germany and Sweden. Denmark, too, doles out an allowance of about $900 a month to students to cover their living expenses. But don’t try to study in the UK on the cheap. The UK is the most expensive country in Europe, with college tuition coming in at an average of $12,414.

In Australia, graduates don’t pay anything on their loans until they earn about $40,000 a year, and then they only pay between 4 percent and 8 percent of their income, which is automatically deducted from their bank accounts, reducing the chances of default.

For Japan—a country that sees more than half of its population go to college—the highly respected University of Tokyo only costs about $4,700 a year for undergraduates, thanks to government subsidies. The Japanese government spends almost $8,750 a year per student because it sees the massive value in having a highly educated citizenry.

For Americans, while student loans may still be a good investment overall, the idea of taking a lifetime to pay off the debt may become increasingly unattractive. And it’s only going to get worse, according to JPMorgan, which predicts that by 2035 the cost of attending a four-year private college will top $487,000.

Source: ZeroHedge

New Game Show Gives Millennials A Chance To Eliminate Student Loan Debt

Overinflated college tuition facilitated by a bottomless ocean of cheap student loans has so far trapped forty-five million Americans with a record $1.48 trillion in non-dischargeable debt – an amount which has more than doubled since the 2009 lows.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/fred1-1_0.jpg?itok=YvYg5n1X

As we reported in January, approximately 40 percent of student loans taken out in 2014 are projected to default by 2023 according to the Brookings Institute.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/student-loans-at-risk-of-default-2_1_1.jpg?itok=WCX8WpBP

However, a new game show on TruTV offers millennial contestants a chance to answer trivia questions – and if they win, the game show will pay off their student debt.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/paid-off-michael-torpey-student-loan-forgiveness-600x428.jpg?itok=9GBSBTpx

“Paid Off,” a new trivia game show that premiered this week tries to illuminate the student debt crisis that has entrapped countless millennials. To get the balance right, the show’s producers partnered with a nonprofit group called Student Debt Crisis.

Its executive director and founder, Natalia Abrams, gave this advice to producers: “Every step of the way, from signing up for college to paying back their loans, it’s been a confusing process. So make sure that there’s some heart to this show.”

Video: Paid Off with Michael Torpey Season 1 Trailer 

Michael Torpey, a New York-based actor (“Orange is the New Black”) who is the host of the show, acknowledges that student debt is a crisis and one of the most difficult financial issues plaguing millennials in the gig economy.

“We’re playing in a weird space of dark comedy,” said Torpey, who developed the show with TruTV producers and various nonprofit groups. “As a comedian, I think a common approach to a serious topic is to try to laugh at it first.”

Video: Paid Off with Michael Torpey – The Story Behind Paid Off with Michael

The rules of game show are simple: Three millennial contestants, all of whom have an exorbitant amount of student debt, go head-to-head in a few rounds of trivia questions, hoping that their useless liberal arts degree enables them to answer enough questions right. If they win, well, the show will cover 100 percent of their outstanding student loans.

“One of the mantras is ‘an absurd show to match an absurd crisis,’” Torpey told The Washington Post. “A game show feels really apt because this is the state of things right now.”

Earlier this year, the show had a casting call in Atlanta – this is what the casting flyer stated: “truTV’s new comedy games show PAID OFF is going to do something the government won’t – help people get out of student loan debt! If you’re smart, funny, live in the Atlanta area and have student loan debt, We Want You!”

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-07-11-at-9.56.44-AM-1.png?itok=HY6v3pGr

Video: Paid Off with Michael Torpey – Finger The Masters

Torpey told NBC that “he strives to balance the light hearted trappings of a game show with an earnest, empathetic look at the student debt issue.”

“I want to be very respectful of the folks who come on our show, who opened their hearts and shared their struggles with us,” Torpey said. “I hope this show de-stigmatizes debt. I mean, there are 45 million borrowers out there. It is a huge number of people!”

Google searches for “paid off game show” have been rising since June.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-07-11-at-10.44.17-AM-600x316.png?itok=GMX41JcDhttps://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-07-11-at-10.18.32-AM-600x172.png?itok=_nQwMx-a

Meanwhile, “student loans forgiveness” searches have been surging over the cycle.

Source: ZeroHedge

The State Of American Debt Slaves

It was one gigantic party. But wait…

Total consumer credit rose 5.4% in the fourth quarter, year over year, to a record $3.84 trillion not seasonally adjusted, according to the Federal Reserve. This includes credit-card debt, auto loans, and student loans, but not mortgage-related debt. December had been somewhat of a disappointment for those that want consumers to drown in debt, but the prior months, starting in Q4 2016, had seen blistering surges of consumer debt.

Think what you will of the election – consumers celebrated it or bemoaned it the American way: by piling on debt.

The chart below shows the progression of consumer debt since 2006 (not seasonally adjusted). Note the slight dip after the Financial Crisis, as consumers deleveraged – with much of the deleveraging being accomplished by defaulting on those debts. But it didn’t last long. And consumer debt has surged since. It’s now 45% higher than it had been in Q4 2008. Food for thought: Over the period, the consumer price index increased 17.5%:

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/US-consumer-credit-total-2017-Q4.png

Credit card debt and other revolving credit in Q4 rose 6% year-over-year to $1.027 trillion, a blistering pace, but it was down from the 9.2% surge in Q3, the nearly 10% surge in Q2, and the dizzying 12% surge in Q1. So the growth of credit card debt in Q4 was somewhat of a disappointment for those wanting to see consumers drown in expensive debt.

The chart below shows the leap of the past four quarters over prior years. This pushed credit card debt in Q3 and Q4 finally over the prior record set in Q4 2008 ($1.004 trillion), before it came tumbling down via said “deleveraging.”

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/US-consumer-credit-cards-2017-Q4.png

These are not seasonally adjusted numbers, and you can see the seasonal surges in credit card debt every Q4 during shopping season (as marked), and the drop afterwards in Q1. But then came 2017. In Q1 2017, credit card debt skyrocketed to an even higher level than Q4, when it should have normally plunged – a phenomenon I have not seen before.

This shows what kind of credit-card party 2017 and Q4 2016 was. Over the four quarter period, Americans added $58 billion to their credit card debt. Over the five-quarter period, they added $109 billion, or 12%! Celebration or retail therapy.

Auto loans rose 3.8% in Q4 year-over-year to $1.114 trillion. It was one of the puniest increases since the auto crisis had ended in 2011. Since then, the year-over-year increases were mostly in the 6% to 9% range. These are loans and leases for new and used vehicles. So the weakness in new-vehicle sales volume in 2017 was covered up by price increases in both new and used vehicles in the second half and strong used-vehicle sales:

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/US-consumer-credit-auto-2017-Q4.png

The red line in the chart above indicates the old unadjusted data. In September 2017, the Federal Reserve announced a big adjustment of consumer credit data going back through Q4 2015, impacting auto loans, credit card debt, and total consumer credit. This adjustment was based on survey data collected every five years. So routine. But for Q4 2015, the adjustment knocked auto loan balances down by $38 billion.

Hence that misleading dip in auto loans in Q4 2015 in the chart above. This was at the peak of the auto-buying frenzy, and actual auto-loan balances certainly rose.

Student loans surged 5.6% in Q4 year-over-year. This seems like a shocking increase, but the year-over-year increases in Q3 and Q4 were the only such increases below 6% in this data series. Between 2007 – as far back as year-over-year comparisons are possible in this data series – and Q3 2012, the year-over-year increases ranged from 11% to 15%:

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/US-consumer-credit-student-loans.png

And there was no dip in student-loan balances during the Financial Crisis; in fact, those were the years with the steepest growth rates. From Q1 2008 to Q4 2017, student loan balances soared 141%, from $619.3 billion to $1.49 trillion, multiplying by 2.4 times over those ten years. More food for thought: Over the same period, the consumer price index rose 17.5%.

The problem with debt is that it doesn’t just go away on its own. If one side cannot pay, the other side takes a loss on their asset. Some auto loans and credit card debts remain on the balance sheet of lenders, while others have been securitized and are spread around among investors. But most student loans are guaranteed by the taxpayer or directly funded by the government.

Over the years, student loans have fattened entire industries: Investors in private colleges, the student housing industry (an asset class within commercial real estate), Apple and other companies supplying students with whatever it takes, the textbook industry…. They’re all feeding at the big trough held up by young people and guaranteed by the taxpayer. Food for thought, so to speak.

Source: By Wolf Richter | Wolf Street

 

43% Of Federal Student Loans Are Not Being Repaid

https://i1.wp.com/www.moneytips.com/logo/13186.jpeg

Do you have outstanding debt from a federal student loan? If so, the chances are significant that you are behind on your payments or have not even tried to make any payments at all. As of the beginning of the year, there were approximately 22 million Americans with student loans — and, according to information from the Department of Education, only 12.5 million of them are current with their loan payments.

Around 3 million student loan holders are in some form of postponement on their debt. Through a deferment or forbearance, they have permission to delay their loan payments due to a hardship such as unemployment or other financial emergency. Approximately $110 billion in student loan balances are in some form of postponement.

Another 3 million more student loan borrowers were delinquent, meaning they were between one month and a year behind on their loans. 3.6 million borrowers are at least a year behind on their payments and are considered to be in default. Government officials are concerned that many of the borrowers in default do not intend ever to attempt to pay back their student loans.

https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.investwithalex.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fstudent-debt-investwithalex.jpg&sp=773042320e3592e35d7812c333d52438

The combined balance in delinquent and defaulted loans is approximately $122 billion, meaning that around $232 billion of the over $1.2 trillion student loan portfolio is in some form of distress. Other types of loans with traditional banks would not tolerate such a ratio — but what bank would loan money without credit checks, cosigners, or any evidence that the loan will ever be paid back? Essentially, that’s how student loans work. The government also has no collateral; they cannot repossess your education (yet).

There is at least some silver lining, as a 43% non-repayment rate represents an improvement over last year’s rate of 46%. The Wall Street Journal attributes much of the change to programs that allow some borrowers to lower their student loan payments by connecting them to a percentage of the borrower’s income (also known as income-driven repayment). The number of borrowers taking advantage of these programs nearly doubled over the past year to 4.6 million.

Fortune notes that the Department of Education has blogged that those who do not pay back federal student loans will not be arrested, but they will suffer problems in their financial future and will certainly have difficulties establishing good credit. Unfortunately, evidence shows that some borrowers may not care. The attitude may be that the government will eventually write off these loans or that the potential punishments are not worth a repayment effort compared to other priorities.

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fskibalaw.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FiStock_000008107059Small.jpg&sp=6b577af60cc735124bccb99d1c998b5a

Data from student loan servicer, Navient Corp. shows that the average attempts to reach borrowers in delinquency are between 230 and 300, or more than once every other day. Regardless of format — calls, letters, text messages, and e-mails — 90% never respond. Over half never even attempt to make a payment prior to default.

Income-driven repayment is the preferred compromise path that allows repayment without punishing those who legitimately cannot find work and afford repayment. There are four such programs offered through the Federal Student Aid website: REPAYE, PAYE, IBR, and ICR. If you find yourself among the 43%, consider income-driven repayment plans as a way to repay your debt without overburdening your budget.

If you are among those who are simply ignoring your obligation to repay, don’t. Just because you may never be jailed because of default does not mean that there are not consequences — and do not expect the government to bail you out. Even if the rules are changed, they may not be retroactive. Do the responsible thing and set up a program to pay as you can.

source: MoneyTips

7 Million People Haven’t Made A Single StudentLoan.gov Payment In At Least A Year


Perhaps it’s all the talk about across-the-board debt forgiveness or maybe the total amount of outstanding student debt has simply grown so large ($1.3 trillion) that even those with no conception of how much money that actually is realize that it’s simply never going to paid back so there’s no point worrying about, but whatever the case, the general level of concern regarding America’s student debt bubble doesn’t seem to be at all commensurate with the size of the problem. 

And it’s not just the sheer size of the debt pile that’s worrisome. There’s also the knock-on effects, such as delayed household formation and the attendant downward pressure on the home ownership rate, and of course hyperinflation in the rental market. 

Of course one reason no one is panicking – yet – is that the severity of the problem is masked by artificially suppressed delinquency rates. As we’ve documented in excruciating detail, if one excludes loans in deferment and forbearance from the numerator in the delinquency calculation, but includes those loans in the denominator then the delinquency rate will be deceptively low. In any event, as WSJ reports, even if one looks at something very simple like, say, the number of borrowers who haven’t made a payment in a year, the picture is not pretty and it’s getting worse all the time. Here’s more:

Nearly seven million Americans have gone at least a year without making a payment on their federal student loans, a staggering level of default that highlights how student debt continues to burden households despite an improving labor market.

As of July, 6.9 million Americans with student loans hadn’t sent a payment to the government in at least 360 days, quarterly data from the Education Department showed this week. That was up 6%, or 400,000 borrowers, from a year earlier.

The figures translate into about 17% of all borrowers with federal loans being severely delinquent—and that share would be even higher if borrowers currently in school were excluded. Additionally, millions of other borrowers who haven’t hit the 360-day threshold that the government defines as a default are months behind on their payments.

Each new crop of students is experiencing the same problems” with repaying, said Mark Kantrowitz, a higher-education expert and publisher of the information website Edvisors.com. “The entire situation isn’t getting better.”

The development carries big implications for borrowers, taxpayers and the economy. Economists have warned of student-debt defaults damaging borrowers’ credit standing, which would hurt their ability to borrow for things like cars and homes. That in turn would hamper the economy, which relies heavily on consumer purchases for economic activity. Delinquencies also drain government revenues, which are used to make future loans.

So what’s the solution you ask? According to the government, the answer is the income based repayment plans. Here’s The Journal again:

 Education Secretary Arne Duncan said declines [in some categories of delinquencies] resulted from rising participation in income-based repayment plans, which lower borrowers’ monthly bills by tying payments to their incomes. Enrollment in the plans surged 56% over the past year among direct-loan borrowers.

The administration has urgently promoted the plans, mainly through emails to borrowers, over the past two years in an effort to stem defaults. The plans set payments as 10% or 15% of their discretionary income, defined as adjusted gross income minus 150% the federal poverty level.

The plans carry risks, though, for both borrowers and the government. Many borrowers’ payments aren’t enough to cover the interest on their debt, allowing their balances to grow and threatening to trap them under debt for years.

At the same time, the government could be left forgiving huge amounts of debt if borrowers stay in the plans. The government forgives balances after 10, 20 or 25 years of on-time payments, depending on the plan.


But aside from the fact that these plans will cost taxpayers an estimated $39 billion over the next decade – and that’s just counting those expected to enroll in plans going forward and ignoring the $200 billion or so in loans already enrolled in an IBR plan – the most absurd thing about Duncan’s claim is that, as we’ve shown, IBR programs don’t drive down delinquency rates, they just change the meaning of the term “payment”:

See how that works? If you can’t afford to pay, just tell the Department of Education and they’ll enroll you in an IBR plan where your “payments” can be $0 and you won’t be counted as delinquent.

So we suppose we should retract the statement we made above. You are correct Mr. Duncan, these plans are actually very effective at bringing down delinquencies and the method is remarkably straightforward: the government just stopped counting delinquent borrowers as delinquent.

Source: Zero Hedge

Sugar Daddies Are Paying Their Share Of The $1.3 Trillion Student Loan Balance

As noted previously, we are in a new dark age where college does not pay. At $1.3 trillion, the student debt balance is not getting any smaller. Facing a lifetime of debt slavery, the millennial generation is doing whatever they can to avoid homelessness. Whether it’s stripping or working at Rent A Gent, all options are on the table. Now, they are flocking to Seeking Arrangement to prostitute themselves so they can pay for school. Since 2009, the number of student sugar babies has increased by 1,200%!

The labor force participation rate for college graduates has been on a relentless downtrend.

Bachelor Degree Labor Force Participation

It is getting even more expensive to go to school. Even after adjusting for inflation, college costs have gone up more than 400% in the last 30 years.

College Tuition

The student loan balance has nearly tripled in the last decade.

Student Loans

Many young people don’t see any good alternatives to going to school, so they jump in head first. Facing enormous bills, they turn to sites like Seeking Arrangement for help. These aren’t just women either. 15% of student sugar babies are men, and plenty of sugar mommas are on the site too.

Here are the numbers.

Seeking Arrangement Stats

And here are the sugar babies by major.

Top Sugar Baby Majors

The abundance of nurses on Seeking Arrangement shouldn’t be surprising for regular readers. Personal care aides and nurses are the fastest growing jobs in America.

Most New Jobs

Here are the perks of Seeking Arrangement.

Sugar Baby Perks

And here are the sugar babies.

Sugar Babies

Previously, it was common for students to take food and service jobs, but soon, you will hear college students casually sharing their day with their sugar daddy. Welcome to the modern hooker economy.

by Daniel Drew

Assisted-Living Complexes for Young People

https://i1.wp.com/www.cenozoico.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Balcony-Appartment-Outdoor-Living-Room-Ideas-1024x681.jpg

by Dionne Searcey

One of the most surprising developments in the aftermath of the housing crisis is the sharp rise in apartment building construction. Evidently post-recession Americans would rather rent apartments than buy new houses.

When I noticed this trend, I wanted to see what was behind the numbers.

Is it possible Americans are giving up on the idea of home ownership, the very staple of the American dream? Now that would be a good story.

What I found was less extreme but still interesting: The American dream appears merely to be on hold.

Economists told me that many potential home buyers can’t get a down payment together because the recession forced them to chip away at their savings. Others have credit stains from foreclosures that will keep them out of the mortgage market for several years.

More surprisingly, it turns out that the millennial generation is a driving force behind the rental boom. Young adults who would have been prime candidates for first-time home ownership are busy delaying everything that has to do with becoming a grown-up. Many even still live at home, but some data shows they are slowly beginning to branch out and find their own lodgings — in rental apartments.

A quick Internet search for new apartment complexes suggests that developers across the country are seizing on this trend and doing all they can to appeal to millennials. To get a better idea of what was happening, I arranged a tour of a new apartment complex in suburban Washington that is meant to cater to the generation.

What I found made me wish I was 25 again. Scented lobbies crammed with funky antiques that led to roof decks with outdoor theaters and fire pits. The complex I visited offered Zumba classes, wine tastings, virtual golf and celebrity chefs who stop by to offer cooking lessons.

“It’s like an assisted-living facility for young people,” the photographer accompanying me said.

Economists believe that the young people currently filling up high-amenity rental apartments will eventually buy homes, and every young person I spoke with confirmed that this, in fact, was the plan. So what happens to the modern complexes when the 20-somethings start to buy homes? It’s tempting to envision ghost towns of metal and pipe wood structures with tumbleweeds blowing through the lobbies. But I’m sure developers will rehabilitate them for a new demographic looking for a renter’s lifestyle.

Hillary: “Business Does Not Create Jobs”, Washington Does

Hillary_Clinton_2016_president_bid_confirmed by Tyler Durden

We have a very serious problem with Hillary. I was asked years ago to review Hillary’s Commodity Trading to explain what went on. Effectively, they did trades and simply put winners in her account and the losers in her lawyer’s. This way she gets money that is laundered through the markets – something that would get her 25 years today. People forget, but Hillary was really President – not Bill. Just 4 days after taking office, Hillary was given the authority to start a task force for healthcare reform. The problem was, her vision was unbelievable. The costs upon business were oppressive so much so that not even the Democrats could support her. When asked how was a small business mom and pop going to pay for healthcare she said “if they could not afford it they should not be in business.” From that moment on, my respect for her collapsed. She revealed herself as a real Marxist. Now, that she can taste the power of Washington, and I dare say she will not be a yes person as Obama and Bush seem to be, therein lies the real danger. Giving her the power of dictator, which is the power of executive orders, I think I have to leave the USA just to be safe. Hillary has stated when she ran the White House before regarding her idea of healthcare, “We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.” When has that ever happened?

Hillary believes in government at the expense of the people. I do not say this lightly, because here she goes again. She just appeared at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday. She was off the hook and amazingly told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.” “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Clinton said. “You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” she continued. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.” “You know, one of the things my husband says when people say ‘Well, what did you bring to Washington,’ he said, ‘Well, I brought arithmetic,” Hillary said.

I wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal on Clinton’s Balanced Budget. It was smoke and mirrors. Long-term interest rates were sharply higher than short-term. Clinton shifted the national debt to save interest expenditures. He also inherited a up-cycle in the economy that always produces more taxes. Yet she sees no problem with the math of perpetually borrowing. Perhaps she would get to the point of being unable to sell debt and just confiscate all wealth since government knows better. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Here’s a shocker or is it? Take the quiz and then check your answers at the bottom. Then take action!!!

And, no, the answers to these questions aren’t all “Barack Obama”!

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf
of the common good.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin

D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government
of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it
with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity.”
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. Barack Obama

E. None of the above

3) “(We)…..can’t just let business as usual go on, and that
means something has to be taken away from some people.”
A. Nikita Khrushchev
B. Joseph Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin

D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires
people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create
this common ground.”
A. Mao Tse Tung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong II

D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. Barack Obama

E. None of the above

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what
has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire
economy that they are being watched.”
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein

D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

and the answers are ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(1) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Want to know something scary? She may be the next POTUS.

https://i0.wp.com/glossynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/clintonAP1712_468x5921.jpg

The Boom-and-bust Fed’s Rental Society

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5477/10625414354_3f92ab4979.jpg

by Reuven Brenner

Now, as during World War II and up to 1951, the US Federal Reserve practiced what is now called quantitative easing (QE). Then, as now, nominal interest rates were low and the real ones negative: The Fed’s policy did not so much induce investments as it allowed the government to accumulate debts, and prevent default.

Marriner Eccles, the Fed chairman during the 1940s, stated explicitly that “we agreed with the Treasury at the time of the war [that the low rates were] the basis upon which the Federal Reserve would assure the Government financing” – the Fed thus carrying out fiscal policy. Real wages stagnated then as now, and global savings poured into the US.

With the centrally controlled war economy, there was no sacrifice buying Treasuries. Extensive price controls, whose administration was gradually dismantled after 1948 only, did not induce investments. Citizens backed this war, and consumer oriented production was not a priority. Black markets thrived, and the real inflation was significantly higher than the official one computed from the controlled prices.

Still, even the official cumulative rate of inflation was 70% between 1940-7. Yet interest rates during those years hovered around 0.5% for three-months Treasuries and 2.5% for the 30-year ones – similar to today’s.

When the Allies won the War, there were many unknowns, among them the future of Europe, Russia, Asia, and there was much uncertainty about domestic policies in the US too: how fast the US’s centralized “war economy” would be dismantled being one of them. As noted, the dismantling started in 1948, but the Fed gained independence and ceased carrying out fiscal policy in 1951 only.

Mark Twain said history rhymes but does not repeat itself. Though now the West is not fighting wars on the scale of World War II, there is uncertainty again in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, in Europe, in Russia and in Latin America. Savings continue to pour in the US, into Treasuries in particular, much criticism of US fiscal and monetary policies notwithstanding.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed person – the US – committing fewer mistakes and expected to correct them faster than other countries, can still do reasonably. And although domestically, the US is not as much subject to wage and price controls as it was during and after World War II, large sectors, such as education and health, among others, are subject to direct and indirect controls by an ever more complex bureaucracy, the regulatory and fiscal environment, both domestic and international is uncertain, whether linked to climate, corporate taxes, what differential tax rates would be labeled “state aid”, and others.

Many societies are in the midst of unprecedented experiments, with no model of society being perceived as clearly worth emulation.

In such uncertain worlds, the best thing investors can do is be prepared for mobility – be nimble and able to become “liquid” on moments’ notice. This means investing in deeper bond and stock markets, but even in them for shorter periods of time – “renting” them, rather than buying into the businesses underlying them, and less so in immobile assets. Among the consequence of such actions are low velocity of money (with less confidence, money flows more slowly) and less capital spending, in “immobile assets” in particular.

As to in- and outflows to gold, its price fluctuations post-crisis suggest that its main feature is being a global reserve currency, a substitute to the dollar. As the euro’s and the yen’s credibility to be reserve currencies first weakened since 2008, and the yuan, a communist party-ruled country’s currency is not fit to play such role, by 2011 the dollar’s dominant status as reserve currency even strengthened.

First the price of gold rose steadily from US$600 per ounce in 2005 to $1,900 in 2011, dropping to $1,200 these days. And much sound and fury notwithstanding, the exchange rate between the dollar, euro and yen are now exactly where they were in 2005, with the price of an ounce of gold doubling since.

The stagnant real wages in Main Street’s immobile sectors are consistent with the rising stock prices and low interest rates. Not only are investors less willing to deploy capital in relatively illiquid assets, but also that critical mass of talented people, I often call the “vital few”, has been moving toward the occupations of the “mobile” sector, such as technology, finance and media.

Such moves put caps on wages within the immobile sectors. Just as “stars” quitting a talented team in sports lower the compensation of teammates left behind, so is the case when “stars” in business or technology make their moves away from the “immobile” sectors. Add to these the impact due to heightened competition of tens of millions of “ordinary talents” from around the world, and the stagnant wages in the US’s immobile sectors are not surprising.

This is one respect in which our world differs from the one of post-World War II, when talent poured into the US’s “immobile” sectors, freed from the constraints of the war economy. It differs too in terms of rising inequality of wealth. The Western populations were young then, hungry to restore normalcy, and able to do that in the dozen Western countries only, the rest of the world having closed behind dictatorial curtains.

This is not the case now: the West’s aging boomers and its poorer segments saw the evaporation of equities in homes and increased uncertainty about their pensions in 2008. They went into capital preservation mode with Treasuries, not stocks. At the age of 50-55 and above, people cannot risk their capital, as they do not have time and opportunities to recoup.

However, those for whom losing more would not significantly alter their standards of living did put the money back in stock markets after the crisis. As markets recovered after 2008, wealth disparities increased. This did not happen after World War II; even though stock markets did well, they were in their infancy then. Even in 1952, only 6.5 million Americans owned common stock (about 4% of the US population then). The hoarding during the war did not find its outlet after its end in stock markets, as happened since 2008 for the relatively well to do.

The parallels in terms of monetary and fiscal policies between World War II and today, and the non-parallels in terms of demography and global trade, shed light on the major trends since the crisis: there are no “conundrums.” This does not mean that solutions are straightforward or can be done unilaterally. The post -World War II world needed Bretton-Woods, and today agreement to stabilize currencies is needed too.

This has not been done. Instead central banks have improvised, though there is no proof that central banks can do well much more than keep an eye on stable prices. The recent improvised venturing into undefined “financial stability”, undefined “cooperation” and “coordination”, and the Fed carrying out, as during World War II, fiscal rather than monetary policy, add to fiscal, regulatory and foreign policy uncertainties, all punish long-term investments and drive money into liquid ones, and society becoming a “rental”, one, with shortened horizons.

Jumps in stock prices with each announcement that the Fed will continue with its present policies and favor devaluation (as Stan Fisher, vice chairman of the Fed just advocated) – does not suggest that things are on the right track, but quite the opposite, that the Fed has not solved any problem, and neither has Washington dealt with fundamentals. Instead, with devaluations, they have avoided domestic fiscal and regulatory adjustments – and hope for the resulting increased exports, that is, relying on other countries making policy adjustments.

Reuven Brenner holds the Repap Chair at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management. The article draws on his Force of Finance (2002).

(Copyright 2014 Reuven Brenner)

 

Student Debt Could Reduce Home Sales 8% This Year, Report Says


By Nick Timiros

Higher levels of student debt will reduce U.S. home sales by around 8% this year, according to a report released Friday by John Burns Real Estate Consulting, an advisory firm.

The paper examines the impact of student debt on purchase activity for households under age 40. Those households account for around two-thirds of student debt holders. It concludes that sales of new and existing home will total 5.26 million this year, with some 414,000 “lost” households as a result of rising student debt burdens.

Higher debt burdens will defer home purchases for many borrowers while requiring others to buy a less expensive home in order to qualify for a loan or save for a down payment.

The paper estimates that every $250 per month in student loan debt reduces borrowers’ purchasing power by $44,000, and since 2005, some 3.8 million additional households have at least $250 per month in student debt.

Put differently, around 35% of households under age 40 have monthly student debt payments exceeding $250, up from 22% of households in 2005.

The typical first-time buyer can qualify for a $234,080 mortgage without any student debt, but that figure falls as the monthly debt burden rises. (The analysis assumes that the traditional first-time buyer has income of $61,000.) Mortgage lenders generally won’t extend credit to borrowers whose total debt payments exceed 43% of their gross incomes.

The analysis assumes that most borrowers with $750 or more in monthly student debt payments will be priced out of the market unless they’re making much more money than the traditional first-time buyer. For the typical entry-level buyer with $750 in monthly student debt payments, they can qualify for a $103,280 mortgage.

But the analysis finds that many borrowers with modest monthly student debt payments are also lost transactions this year. It concludes that around 57,000 households with student debt payments of less than $100 won’t be buying homes this year, and that around 127,000 borrowers with payments between $100 and $250 are lost.

29% Of All U.S. Adults Under The Age Of 35 Are Living With Their Parents

Source: The Economic Collapse

Why are so many young adults in America living with their parents?  According to a stunning Gallup survey that was recently released, nearly three out of every ten adults in the United States under the age of 35 are still living at home with Mom and Dad.  This closely lines up with a Pew Research Center analysis of Census data that looked at a younger sample of Americans which found that 36 percent of Americans 18 to 31 years old were still living with their parents.  That was the highest level that had ever been recorded.  Overall, approximately 25 million U.S. adults are currently living at home with their parents according to Time Magazine.  So what is causing all of this?  Well, there are certainly a lot of factors.  Overwhelming student loan debt, a depressing lack of jobs and the high cost of living are all definitely playing a role.  But many would argue that what we are witnessing goes far beyond temporary economic conditions.  There are many that believe that we have fundamentally failed our young people and have neglected to equip them with the skills and values that they need to be successful in the real world.

More Americans than ever before seem to be living in a state of “perpetual adolescence”.  As Gallup noted, one of the keys to adulthood is to be able to establish independence from your parents…

An important milestone in adulthood is establishing independence from one’s parents, including finding a job, a place to live and, for most, a spouse or partner, and starting one’s own family. However, there are potential roadblocks on the path to independence that may force young adults to live with their parents longer, including a weak job market, the high cost of living, significant college debt, and helping care for an elderly or disabled parent.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to become financially independent.  While they are in high school, we endlessly pound into their heads the need to go to college.  Then we urge them to take out whatever loans that they will need to pay for it, ensuring them that they will be able to get “good jobs” which will enable them to pay off those loans when they graduate.

Of course a very large percentage of them find that there aren’t any “good jobs” waiting for them when they graduate.  But because of the crippling loans that they have accumulated, they quickly realize that they have decades of debt slavery ahead of them.

Just consider the following numbers about the growth of student loan debt in the United States…

-The total amount of student loan debt in the United States has risen to a brand new all-time record of 1.08 trillion dollars.

-Student loan debt accounted for 3.1 percent of all consumer debt in 2003.  Today, it accounts for 9.4 percent of all consumer debt.

-In the third quarter of 2007, the student loan delinquency rate was 7.6 percent.  Today, it is up to 11.5 percent.

This is a student loan debt bubble unlike anything that we have ever seen before, and it seems to get worse with each passing year.

So when is the bubble going to finally burst?

Meanwhile, our young adults are still really struggling to find jobs.

For those in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket, it is getting even harder to find full-time employment.  In June 2012, 47 percent of those in that entire age group had a full-time job.  One year later, in June 2013, only 43.6 percent of that entire age group had a full-time job.

And in many ways, things are far tougher for those that didn’t finish college than for those that did.  In fact, the unemployment rate for 27-year-old college dropouts is nearly three times as high as the unemployment rate for those that finished college.

In addition, since Barack Obama has been president close to 40 percent of all 27-year-olds have spent at least some time unemployed.

So it should be no surprise that 27-year-olds are really struggling financially.  Only about one out of every five 27-year-olds owns a home at this point, and an astounding 80 percent of all 27-year-olds are in debt.

Even if a young adult is able to find a job, that does not mean that it will be enough to survive on.  The quality of jobs in America continues to go downhill and so do wages.

The ratio of what men in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket are earning compared to what the general population is earning is at an all-time low, and American families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.

No wonder so many young people are living at home.  Trying to survive in the real world is not easy.

Many of those that are trying to make it on their own are really struggling to do so.  Just consider the case of Kevin Burgos.  He earns $10.50 an hour working as an assistant manager at a Dunkin Donuts location in Hartford, Connecticut.  According to CNN, he can’t seem to make enough to support his family no matter how hard he works…

He works 35 hours each week to support his family of three young children. All told, Burgos makes about $1,800 each month.

But his bills for basic necessities, including rent for his two-bedroom apartment, gas for his car, diapers and visits to the doctor, add up to $2,400. To cover these expenses without falling short, Burgos would need to make at least $17 per hour.

“I am always worried about what I’m going to do for tomorrow,” Burgos said.

There are millions of young people out there that are pounding their heads against the wall month after month trying to work hard and do the right thing.  Sometimes they get so frustrated that they snap.  Just consider the following example

Health officials have temporarily shut down a southern West Virginia pizza restaurant after a district manager was caught on surveillance video urinating into a sink.

Local media reported that the Mingo County health department ordered the Pizza Hut in Kermit, about 85 miles southwest of Charleston, to shut down.

But as I mentioned earlier, instead of blaming young people for their failures, perhaps we need to take a good, long look at how we have raised them.

The truth is that our public schools are a joke, SAT scores are at an all-time low, and we have pushed nearly all discussion of morality, values and faith out of the public square.

No wonder most of our young people are dumb as a rock and seem to have no moral compass.

Or could it be possible that I am being too hard on them?

%d bloggers like this: