Support Thread for the 6-figure debt plunge Forum

[lolschool2011]

I think the only concerns regarding the state of the economy are the current uprisings in North Africa/Middle East.

Not to be contrarian, but there are plenty of economists who will argue our economic "recovery" has been entirely artificial. There has been no fundamental change in the capital structure of the economy and when stimulus stops and interest rates are allowed to return to market levels we will have another housing-like crash in a different sector of the economy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's a real possibility.

Of course, capitalism by nature is boom and bust. The point is to get our jobs during the boom phase that's soon to come and hopefully hang on to them.

No, that's not the point of (true) captalism, which doesn't exist within our system, unless you still think we have a "free market." (uber lol)

That's maybe what some crooked economist/intellectual who also wants to "hang on" to his job would write to be a good, obedient servant of corporate power.

The only people that benefit from a boom/bust economy are the rich... because they ARE able to "hang on." The rest of society is left with no security, no sustainable jobs, no wealth, etc.

[rman1201]

I think the only concerns regarding the state of the economy are the current uprisings in North Africa/Middle East.

Not to be contrarian, but there are plenty of economists who will argue our economic "recovery" has been entirely artificial. There has been no fundamental change in the capital structure of the economy and when stimulus stops and interest rates are allowed to return to market levels we will have another housing-like crash in a different sector of the economy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's a real possibility.

Of course, capitalism by nature is boom and bust. The point is to get our jobs during the boom phase that's soon to come and hopefully hang on to them.

No, that's not the point of (true) captalism, which doesn't exist within our system, unless you still think we have a "free market." (uber lol)

That's maybe what some crooked economist/intellectual who also wants to "hang on" to his job would write to be a good, obedient servant of corporate power.

The only people that benefit from a boom/bust economy are the rich... because they ARE able to "hang on." The rest of society is left with no security, no sustainable jobs, no wealth, etc.

I never said it was a good system that we have, more stability seems favorable. But it is what it is.

[Hey-O]

I think the only concerns regarding the state of the economy are the current uprisings in North Africa/Middle East.

Not to be contrarian, but there are plenty of economists who will argue our economic "recovery" has been entirely artificial. There has been no fundamental change in the capital structure of the economy and when stimulus stops and interest rates are allowed to return to market levels we will have another housing-like crash in a different sector of the economy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's a real possibility.

What other sector of the economy are we talking about? Also, a bunch of big banks went bust while others were forced to adapt or were bailed out. The foreclosure crisis is not getting worse, and it's reasonable to say that any financial company who's weathered it thus far is probably going to survive long term. So, in a way, the fundamentals of the economy have changed, and maybe the capital structure for the remaining companies is ok.

Also, a lot of the stimulus is already gone, and most of it went to special interest groups anyway. I'm not sure current growth is solely or even significantly due to stimulus spending. We might still be in a recession for a long time to come; however, since we have thus far escaped the inflation of the 70's, and Chinese exports are weakening by the day, I think it's fair to say that the market will broadly get better between now and when I do OCI in 2012 or 2013.[/quote]

Wow - this is a lot of wrong in a small amount of space. In any case, I corrected for you. I have direct experience in the sectors you're attempting to discuss and you are about as wrong as one can possibly be wrong. If you were being ironical or sarcastic, this would be a funny joke, but if you're serious, then most of what you said is ridiculously off.

[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by these strike outs. Care to explain? I'm not saying the other post is 100% right, but I don't see why he/she would be 'ridiculous'.

[lolschool2011]

Ok, sure. First of all, it wasn't the biggest banks that went bust, it was the (relatively) smaller ones that were over-leveraged, especially w/mortgage backed securities. Here's a list of the banks that failed since 2000: http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/fai ... klist.html

Guess who won in this latest economic collapse? Chase, B of A, GMAC is still alive, Wells, etc.
Now there's even more of a concentration of capital (less competition anyone?) than before.

The collapse just made the rich, richer. To say that most of the stimulous went to "special interest groups anyway" is just categorically ridiculous. I can go on...

[Hey-O]

Not to be contrarian, but there are plenty of economists who will argue our economic "recovery" has been entirely artificial. There has been no fundamental change in the capital structure of the economy and when stimulus stops and interest rates are allowed to return to market levels we will have another housing-like crash in a different sector of the economy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's a real possibility.

What other sector of the economy are we talking about? Also, a bunch of big banks went bust while others were forced to adapt or were bailed out. The foreclosure crisis is not getting worse, and it's reasonable to say that any financial company who's weathered it thus far is probably going to survive long term. So, in a way, the fundamentals of the economy have changed, and maybe the capital structure for the remaining companies is ok.

Also, a lot of the stimulus is already gone, and most of it went to special interest groups anyway. I'm not sure current growth is solely or even significantly due to stimulus spending. We might still be in a recession for a long time to come; however, since we have thus far escaped the inflation of the 70's, and Chinese exports are weakening by the day, I think it's fair to say that the market will broadly get better between now and when I do OCI in 2012 or 2013.[/quote]

Wow - this is a lot of wrong in a small amount of space. In any case, I corrected for you. I have direct experience in the sectors you're attempting to discuss and you are about as wrong as one can possibly be wrong. If you were being ironical or sarcastic, this would be a funny joke, but if you're serious, then most of what you said is ridiculously off.

[/quote]


Ok, sure. First of all, it wasn't the biggest banks that went bust, it was the (relatively) smaller ones that were over-leveraged, especially w/mortgage backed securities. Here's a list of the banks that failed since 2000: http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/fai ... klist.html

Guess who won in this latest economic collapse? Chase, B of A, GMAC is still alive, Wells, etc.
Now there's even more of a concentration of capital (less competition anyone?) than before.

The collapse just made the rich, richer. To say that most of the stimulous went to "special interest groups anyway" is just categorically ridiculous. I can go on...[/quote]


Why did you write so tiny? And you refuted the details of that argument, not the core. The main point was that the financial markets in the US were fundamentally altered by the crash. I would agree with this. Now if that is a good or bad thing I don't know that's his point. Also, who cares whether or not the stimulus went to special interests (what does that even mean - every group is a special interest)? It's mostly spent anyway.

Also, the last sentence that you scratched was spot-on (okay a little weak in details, but still good). We have escaped inflation and stagflation and deflation, which is good. In spite of the fact that Fed just injected a huge amount of liquidity into the system. Good. Chinese exports are going to remain competition for a long time, but China is definitely trying to build a consumer economy and it has to deal with the rising inflation. And the way it will probably deal with it is by allowing the Yuan to appreciate at a faster rate. Which is good for the US.

[lolschool2011]

"We have escaped inflation and stagflation and deflation?"

You're joking, right?

Lets use common sense and just talk about one of these terms... inflation, which is the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy, usually as measured by the consumer price index and the producer price index.

We're at what, 10% unemployment? Which is really probably 15-20% if we're honest and count those who simply stopped looking or are severely underemployed, etc. No one has money to buy anything and you think it's "good" b/c we've avoided inflation? Let me explain to you how these terms are used.... subversively. When economists use the term inflation, it doesn't take into account what the latest aftermath of the now chronic boom/bust economy is. Real wages and job security has decreased over the last 20-30 years. If the price of a good or service remains the same but there's 5 million more unemployed people, that's not a triumph.

[Malcolm8X]

"We have escaped inflation and stagflation and deflation?"

If the price of a good or service remains the same but there's 5 million more unemployed people, that's not a triumph.

This is WELL stated..

The fed will control inflation whatever way possible. Is the recovery sustainable is the question. Stimulus funds did not get us out of the crash. Bank bailouts and industry bailouts did (AIG, automotive, etc...). I think the financial institutions are a house of cards that is screwing up this country from the top down. Shady accounting and investment deals leaves nobody accountable. One example, speculation of oil. This is the SECOND time this is happening, yet we still think it's because of some uprising in North Africa/Middle East or some exploding oil tanker in the Mediterranean that has little to virtually no affect on the supply oil.

Nonetheless, the legal industry benefits in the short term from the increased litigation from bankruptcies/financial fraud/etc... We take the mega hit once these corporations are axed though.

[legalmindedfella]

One thing I'm very curious about is the thoughts of people who don't see themselves working long-term in big law - such as those hoping to do academia, or government, or PI work, or one of the much-maligned specialty focuses like "international law." (I don't fit precisely into any of these categories, but would prefer not to spend my life in big law.)

For you lot - are you planning on working in big law for a few years to make your debt more manageable and then moving onto something else? Or heading straight into PI and then riding on the LRAP for the next decade? Or some alternative approach? It does seem as if at some institutions (NYU, Cal, HYS, Georgetown (?) ) LRAP should largely take care of things, but that elsewhere working in big law is perhaps the only realistic option for achieving some independence.

[flcath]

One thing I'm very curious about is the thoughts of people who don't see themselves working long-term in big law - such as those hoping to do academia, or government, or PI work, or one of the much-maligned specialty focuses like "international law." (I don't fit precisely into any of these categories, but would prefer not to spend my life in big law.)

For you lot - are you planning on working in big law for a few years to make your debt more manageable and then moving onto something else? Or heading straight into PI and then riding on the LRAP for the next decade? Or some alternative approach? It does seem as if at some institutions (NYU, Cal, HYS, Georgetown (?) ) LRAP should largely take care of things, but that elsewhere working in big law is perhaps the only realistic option for achieving some independence.

Med school, brah

[law_monkey]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

[kwais]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

Haha good luck. go LRAP

[Malcolm8X]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

If you're PI, you should be fine then with the LRAP (10 years). Especially since you know that before law school and you can show demonstrated interest with 1L summer work in a PI related field.

I think the real issue goes to those concern deals with those gambling on private sector work. If you miss and land a private sector job making $50-60K, no LRAP, no gov't assistance then it's trouble at $150K+ loans.

[bsm909]

Has anyone found any type of resource breaking down the companies that pay tuition reimbursement in their compensation packages? Also-anyone have any luck finding non school related scholarships for law students? My law debt addition wont hit as high as some in this post, but adding it with my debt from my Masters degree- I'm right up there.

[TheStrand]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

If you're PI, you should be fine then with the LRAP (10 years). Especially since you know that before law school and you can show demonstrated interest with 1L summer work in a PI related field.

I think the real issue goes to those concern deals with those gambling on private sector work. If you miss and land a private sector job making $50-60K, no LRAP, no gov't assistance then it's trouble at $150K+ loans.

Go to a school that'll pay LRAP for private sector jobs. Or if you owe enough, pay 10% for 25 years and take the tax hit. What did you mean by "no gov't assistance"? Just the 10 year PI forgiveness deal?

[rundoxierun]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

If you're PI, you should be fine then with the LRAP (10 years). Especially since you know that before law school and you can show demonstrated interest with 1L summer work in a PI related field.

I think the real issue goes to those concern deals with those gambling on private sector work. If you miss and land a private sector job making $50-60K, no LRAP, no gov't assistance then it's trouble at $150K+ loans.

Go to a school that'll pay LRAP for private sector jobs. Or if you owe enough, pay 10% for 25 years and take the tax hit. What did you mean by "no gov't assistance"? Just the 10 year PI forgiveness deal?

Are there any of these besides Harvard and Yale?

[rinkrat19]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

If you're PI, you should be fine then with the LRAP (10 years). Especially since you know that before law school and you can show demonstrated interest with 1L summer work in a PI related field.

I think the real issue goes to those concern deals with those gambling on private sector work. If you miss and land a private sector job making $50-60K, no LRAP, no gov't assistance then it's trouble at $150K+ loans.

Go to a school that'll pay LRAP for private sector jobs. Or if you owe enough, pay 10% for 25 years and take the tax hit. What did you mean by "no gov't assistance"? Just the 10 year PI forgiveness deal?

Are there any of these besides Harvard and Yale?

Federal IBR doesn't require a PI job, just a certain debt amount vs. income level. And debt is forgiven at 25 years for non-PI jobs vs. 10 years for PI jobs.
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

[ahduth]

I recently filled out that Columbia aid questionnaire. Writing 70,000 dollars in that box really made me feel... I don't know. I wouldn't say great, exactly.

[rundoxierun]

Are there any of these besides Harvard and Yale?

Federal IBR doesn't require a PI job, just a certain debt amount vs. income level. And debt is forgiven at 25 years for non-PI jobs vs. 10 years for PI jobs.
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

25 years is a long time and the 25 year program carries a huge income tax hit. You will end up owing something like 33% of the balance of the amount forgiven to the IRS plus penalties and interest until you get it paid off. Assuming 7.5%(though I think you could consolidate below this) int. rate on a 150k debt at graduation you would have to pay like $1,000/month to even touch the principal.

ETA: I think if you made like 55k/yr your payment would be something in the range of 5k/yr. Multiply that by 25 years for 125k and then, again assuming 150k forgiven, add an ~50k tax hit for a total of 175k paid.

[Malcolm8X]

Checking into this thread because there's a huge possibility this will be me. Just to make it even more terrifying, I'm a PI person. LRAP soooooooo better work out.

If you're PI, you should be fine then with the LRAP (10 years). Especially since you know that before law school and you can show demonstrated interest with 1L summer work in a PI related field.

I think the real issue goes to those concern deals with those gambling on private sector work. If you miss and land a private sector job making $50-60K, no LRAP, no gov't assistance then it's trouble at $150K+ loans.

Go to a school that'll pay LRAP for private sector jobs. Or if you owe enough, pay 10% for 25 years and take the tax hit. What did you mean by "no gov't assistance"? Just the 10 year PI forgiveness deal?

Thanks for the correction.. It seems like this will allow people to prevent default, but the tax penalties seem to hurt hard as well.

[rinkrat19]

Are there any of these besides Harvard and Yale?

Federal IBR doesn't require a PI job, just a certain debt amount vs. income level. And debt is forgiven at 25 years for non-PI jobs vs. 10 years for PI jobs.
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

25 years is a long time and the 25 year program carries a huge income tax hit. You will end up owing something like 33% of the balance of the amount forgiven to the IRS plus penalties and interest until you get it paid off. Assuming 7.5%(though I think you could consolidate below this) int. rate on a 150k debt at graduation you would have to pay like $1,000/month to even touch the principal.

ETA: I think if you made like 55k/yr your payment would be something in the range of 5k/yr. Multiply that by 25 years for 125k and then, again assuming 150k forgiven, add an ~50k tax hit for a total of 175k paid.

Thanks for the clarification. I was (obviously) not very clear on the whole deal. In my happy fantasy world, I either get biglaw or a great PI job, so this won't be a problem.

In the meantime, I guess we need to root for HR 2492, to get rid of that tax nightmare.

[TheStrand]

Federal IBR doesn't require a PI job, just a certain debt amount vs. income level. And debt is forgiven at 25 years for non-PI jobs vs. 10 years for PI jobs.
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

@ tkgrrett: Michigan, so you can still come =)

*Edit* nevermind rinkrat, I'm illiterate

[fatduck]

Federal IBR doesn't require a PI job, just a certain debt amount vs. income level. And debt is forgiven at 25 years for non-PI jobs vs. 10 years for PI jobs.
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

Not sure why you bolded what I said. None of that is inconsistent.

@tkgerrett: Michigan, so you can still come =)

true, though some people seem to think that the alternative to biglaw/LRAP is living on the streets because you can't afford your $2500/month loan payment.



come on guys it's just debt slavery, not homelessness.

[TheStrand]

ETA: I think if you made like 55k/yr your payment would be something in the range of 5k/yr. Multiply that by 25 years for 125k and then, again assuming 150k forgiven, add an ~50k tax hit for a total of 175k paid.

Wait, why would it be 150k forgiven if you're still making 5k/year x 25 years of payments? Wouldn't it be 150k-125k=25k forgiven after 25 years?

[fatduck]

ETA: I think if you made like 55k/yr your payment would be something in the range of 5k/yr. Multiply that by 25 years for 125k and then, again assuming 150k forgiven, add an ~50k tax hit for a total of 175k paid.

Wait, why would it be 150k forgiven if you're still making 5k/year x 25 years of payments? Wouldn't it be 150k-125k=25k forgiven after 25 years?

they have the nerve to charge you extra every month, on top of the money they originally lend you. it's called interest or something.







(to be honest though i'm not sure it's reasonable to assume someone makes $55k/yr for 25 years, even at a small firm the ceiling is much higher than that. 25 years is a fucking long time)

[jtemp320]

geez this support thread isnt very supportive