@la_di_da If I'm not mistaken the 6.80/hour thing is a bit of a fib. Americorps members don't receive wages, they receive a stipend. The stipend is non-taxable and it is not income. So that that 6.80 and make it non-taxable - getting better, probably more like $8/hour. Then add in the fact that you can get full food stamps/SNAP benefits which, of the folks I've talked to who have done it, is about $240/month which is about another $1.25/hour. So more like $9.25/hour. Still rough going but not horribly awful for a middle-class kid just out of college whose parents are still probably paying his/her phone bill.
Manhattan below Harlem has been out of the price-range of most people since you started being able to walk around the LES in flip-flops without getting Hep B. We'd all love to live in the exact neighborhood/location we want and pursue our dream career in the arts but most of us choose not to and don't bitch about it. Get over it.
Totally sucks but it's the (admittedly very small and unanticipated) risk one takes when co-signing loans. When you co-sign you need to prepare for the worst-case scenario before making that decision. I don't think this is so much a problem with the private student loan "system" but rather an issue of the unaffordability of higher education - lets focus on that and not create a system whereby folks with a Ph.d and $350k of student loans can just write them off in bankruptcy with the only penalty being bad credit for 7 years ok?
@moreteawesley Well think about this. I am a typical middle-class 18 year old with zero net worth want to get a Ph.d but don't want to pay for it. So I finance my 8 years of degrees (plus living expenses) with student loans - probably totaling $45k/year combined so $360k. And then when I graduate what do I want to do: have to pay back $360k or just declare bankruptcy, owe nothing and just have bad credit for 7 years. This is the sort of "gaming the system" we'd see if one could discharge student loans in bankruptcy.
@sp0ka@twitter Amen. There needs to be an understanding that choosing to live in a cosmopolitan metropolis is a luxury in itself. People who say they are "impoverished" because they cannot afford to live in a high-rent zip code and eat out and get drinks 4x per week with their friends need to open their eyes a little bit.
Maybe you didn't make it clear but it reads like your friend was seriously, not jokingly, talking about how to use your food stamps to buy beer. How was this woman supposed to react to that? You were talking about abusing a welfare program to buy alcohol. How does that jibe with the entirely rational and just argument of poverty that follows?