How does IBR affect your decision? Forum

[Anonymous Loser]

***First, I think you are confusing the recent federal takeover of the student loan industry with the IBR program and its debt discharge.***

Just to be clear, when you say "recent federal takeover of the student loan industry," you are referring to the changes to the FFELP lending program, which had no effect whatsoever on private educational lending.

As always, if students are unhappy with the options available to them though government programs, the free market is ready and waiting. There was no "government takeover," rather, the federal government chose to discontinue incentives designed to encourage private lenders to participate in the federal program. Now, lenders have to earn profits by making intelligent lending decisions, rather than relying on federal subsidization.

[vanwinkle]

It isn't terribly difficult to vet a candidate for committment to public service. If one really believes salary is inadequate to attract and retain qualified legal talent, then a direct salary increase is always preferrable.

I agree that a direct salary increase is an ideal solution, but that's all it is. This is a theoretical solution that ignores reality. There simply isn't enough money available to bring PI employees' salaries up to match the market salaries for corporate lawyers. The issue isn't vetting people for commitment, which by the way many PI employers are very skilled at, helping to ensure that people who actually want these jobs most are still getting them. The issue is that these PI organizations don't have the money to raise people's salaries.

The government stepping in and paying for people's education so they can afford to work these jobs at the lower pay PI orgs offer is not the ideal solution, I'll admit, but it's one that practically works. It also doesn't bias things in favor of government employment; the government could have easily set up an IBR system that only worked for government employees. But this provides a better public benefit overall by providing a source of highly qualified and skilled lawyers for NGOs that are often in desperate need of legal staffing.

I worked briefly this spring for the public defender's office in New Orleans. They start out at about $45K, which is paltry compared to the debt that most people have to take on at any law school (prestigious or not) in order to get a law degree. IBR is a solution that helps encourage people to consider working there despite the abysmally low salary, and by "people" I mean those who are qualified enough to choose to go there, and not just the PD's office having to settle for whoever will work there because they can't find other work. This actually helps them find more dedicated people by increasing the applicant pool, which they can then sift through and sort by prior experience and PI commitment.

Yes, it would be much better if the PD's office paid their employees $100K/year and we didn't need IBR for people who worked there to be able to pay off their loans. But that's not realistic right now. The only way to eliminate the need for IBR is to uniformly and radically raise the salaries of many thousands of PI employees across the country, which could overall end up costing more in the long run, as I explained earlier.

[Wooster33]

Vanwinkle,

Good post. But you're now talking about PD's instead of DOJ. My contention is that the benefits conferred under the current IBR are way too broad and waste a lot of taxpayer money. Even if I were to agree that PD's needed more incentives (and I don't think it is that simple, in some regions I think that is true, in many it is not), why would I be OK with extending it to virtually all government employees and virtually all non-profits? I would be much more comfortable with the IBR discharge policy if it were narrow and directed at traditionally hard-to-staff positions like rural PD offices or legal aid.

I don't think a t14 grad ought to have his legal education paid for by taxpayers because he was so "noble" as to take a prestigious and self-serving job at DOJ. It's really suprising that so many think this is defensible and sound policy--providing incentives for positions which are already considered among the best jobs a lawyer can have.

[Wooster33]

Now, lenders have to earn profits by making intelligent lending decisions, rather than relying on federal subsidization.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. But this is just wrong. The federal subsidization and federal guarantees were designed to allow for indiscriminate and imprudent lending (that way almost every student who applies for aid gets it). Now, maybe it's better the government just does the imprudent lending itself rather than bribing a third party to do it. But let's not fool ourselves about what is going on--taxpayers are subsidizing student loan lending (directly or indirectly) to make sure there is a wide availability of credit.

[vanwinkle]

Vanwinkle,

Good post. But you're now talking about PD's instead of DOJ. My contention is that the benefits conferred under the current IBR are way too broad and waste a lot of taxpayer money. Even if I were to agree that PD's needed more incentives (and I don't think it is that simple, in some regions I think that is true, in many it is not), why would I be OK with extending it to virtually all government employees and virtually all non-profits? I would be much more comfortable with the IBR discharge policy if it were narrow and directed at traditionally hard-to-staff positions like rural PD offices or legal aid.

I don't think a t14 grad ought to have his legal education paid for by taxpayers because he was so "noble" as to take a prestigious and self-serving job at DOJ. It's really suprising that so many think this is defensible and sound policy--providing incentives for positions which are already considered among the best jobs a lawyer can have.

Offices like the New Orleans PD are still relatively "prestigious" because they give great trial experience and can make a starting off point to a great career. However, the pay is shit, the hours are long, and the "benefits" certainly don't make up for the job stresses and difficulties. This is the same argument, really, as extending IBR to DOJ positions, except that in the PD's case it's much more obvious why IBR is needed.

Why be comfortable extending this to virtually all non-profits? Because the need is there for many of them, and the government shouldn't be playing an active role picking and choosing which public agencies are "necessary" and which aren't. That kind of power encourages discrimination along political, ideological, or other lines. We have an adversarial legal system, and for it to function fairly that means we need highly competent representation on both sides of the issue.

I don't agree with it politically, but if someone wants to go to law school and then join a right-wing "religious rights" group that litigates on behalf of those who have their religious rights discriminated, well, that's a necessary thing in our society to ensure those rights are protected. You need both sides to be competent and well-equipped to handle the cases because a poor or weak case on one side could result in a finding that invalidates the rights of many Americans all at once.

These are in many ways considered the "best" positions a lawyer can have morally, but that doesn't make them the best positions to have economically, not by far. People who are being discriminated against are often the people who can't afford the quality of lawyers necessary to adequately defend their rights. The people who end up providing that representation are the people who wilfully choose to forgo the higher salaries they could earn elsewhere in order to do that. The problem is that the salaries they face in many of those jobs are so low that they don't allow a method to live decently and pay back the loans it takes to get there in the first place.

I'm saddened by the fact that you and other people refer to jobs at the DOJ, as well as other non-profit work, as "self-serving", when from an economic standpoint it clearly isn't. These are people who are taking a huge pay cut in order to provide a service to the American public, the taxpayers as you keep defining them, and things like IBR at least make that choice a little more economically practical for them, even if they still end up in total taking a huge pay cut to provide that service to the people. They're doing a job that serves the public, so it makes sense that the public can at least provide for the education that makes that service possible.

[Wooster33]

I'm saddened by the fact that you and other people refer to jobs at the DOJ, as well as other non-profit work, as "self-serving", when from an economic standpoint it clearly isn't.

Working at the DOJ is interesting work, decent pay, great benefits, better hours. And, of course, in a prestige-obsessed profession it's a gold star for the resume. OF COURSE taking a job with the DOJ is self-serving. If you think individuals are taking those positions for altruistic reasons, you're deluded.

A good point about picking and choosing being political, but to me that's more of a reason to throw it all out than to keep an overbroad, extremely wasteful program. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The last thing the government ought to be doing is encouraging more students to attend law school. In the particular case of IBR, it encourages students to attend the most expensive school possible and take out maximum COA loans. Abd what does society get from this expensive undertaking? More lawyers to fill jobs it didn't have trouble filling in the first place. I can understand why people like this program--it's a great deal for us lawyers who want to work in government or for non-profits. But good for me doesn't mean good for the country.

[jks289]

I'm saddened by the fact that you and other people refer to jobs at the DOJ, as well as other non-profit work, as "self-serving", when from an economic standpoint it clearly isn't.

Working at the DOJ is interesting work, decent pay, great benefits, better hours. And, of course, in a prestige-obsessed profession it's a gold star for the resume. OF COURSE taking a job with the DOJ is self-serving. If you think individuals are taking those positions for altruistic reasons, you're deluded.

As someone who parent works at the DOJ prosecuting drugs and violent crime, I take extreme exception to this position. This is a difficult, time-consuming, emotionally draining job. I can't tell you how many events my parent has missed sitting in on wire taps, writing affidavits, being the Duty officer overnight. Every time they win one and put a bad guy in jail, someone else take his place. It is an endless fight. It is true they love their jobs, find fulfillment and are compensated comfortably. I suppose anyone who receives a salary for their job is "self-serving" in some way. But to act as though the people who do these jobs do it out of some sense of self-aggrandizment is wrong and offensive. My parent walked away from a handsome BigLaw salary (in the days long before IBR) and has navigated three decades of shifting political priorities, advocated for victims right, defended colleagues assailed by politicians for upholding their constitutional obligations to Gitmo prisoners. Your statements diminish the contribution of a group of patriotic and very fine attorneys.

[Wooster33]

It is true they love their jobs, find fulfillment and are compensated comfortably.

Exactly. How isn't that self-serving? They do it because they like it better than probably any other job they could imagine. Self-serving and dare I say extremely lucky! And there are thousands of eminently qualified individuals ready to do the same, with or without IBR. That's my point.

[Always Credited]

It is true they love their jobs, find fulfillment and are compensated comfortably.

Exactly. How isn't that self-serving? They do it because they like it better than probably any other job they could imagine. Self-serving and dare I say extremely lucky! And there are thousands of eminently qualified individuals ready to do the same, with or without IBR. That's my point.

With that twisted-ass logic, everything you ever do in your life can be considered self serving.

[thickfreakness]

It is true they love their jobs, find fulfillment and are compensated comfortably.

Exactly. How isn't that self-serving? They do it because they like it better than probably any other job they could imagine. Self-serving and dare I say extremely lucky! And there are thousands of eminently qualified individuals ready to do the same, with or without IBR. That's my point.

With that twisted-ass logic, everything you ever do in your life can be considered self serving.

I don't think he's using "twisted-ass logic," so much as he's saying something that is self-serving isn't necessarily value-negative, which is an implication that term carries in everyday usage.

[jks289]

It is true they love their jobs, find fulfillment and are compensated comfortably.

Exactly. How isn't that self-serving? They do it because they like it better than probably any other job they could imagine. Self-serving and dare I say extremely lucky! And there are thousands of eminently qualified individuals ready to do the same, with or without IBR. That's my point.

Your "point" doesn't make any sense. Not here or above. So people who make 30K in LegalAid should get no assistance if they love their jobs and other people would be lucky and happy to have them? Public defenders making 60K, performing a vital public service, should bear the same debt burden as the defense attorney making 170K? What is the cutoff and who exactly do you think should decide, besides yourself of course? The argument that "lots of people want these jobs" therefore no program should ameliorate the salary discrepancies holds no weight.

Also, you are confusing (again and again) IBR and the debt forgiveness programs. IBR exists for everyone, so what you are really arguing against is the existence of federal loans. In conclusion, you make offensive and factually incorrect statements and once someone calls you on them, you post responding to a very narrow part of their statement and ever so slightly shifting you position. This is the world's most pointless debate, as the only conclusions anyone is walking away with are about you and not the validity of these programs.

[Wooster33]

With that twisted-ass logic, everything you ever do in your life can be considered self serving.

I don't expect anything less (or more) from people. But there are cases, where somebody really suffers a financial burden, or works long hours without recognition, where I would gladly give them props. But in the case of the DOJ, even though many of them perform very good and necessary work, I'm not going to go out of my way to say they're saints. They are essentially at their dream job, in a highly prestigious position which will open many doors in the future, etc. It's pretty clear they are in the position primarily to advance their own agenda and not that of others, so it's self-serving, even if they are doing some good in the process. I suppose we should also thank our lucky stars that some brave lawyers are willing to be Supreme Court Clerks! What would we do without such selfless public servants! LAWL.

[Wooster33]

The argument that "lots of people want these jobs" therefore no program should ameliorate the salary discrepancies holds no weight.

Holds no weight? You are saying that even though there is NO DEMONSTRATED NEED to further incentivize individuals to a particular job, we ought to give them these extra goodies because you deem them more deserving. That's nothing more than a transfer payment to somebody you think is a good person, taking $$$ from the undeserving taxpayers (those evil businesses and big law lawyers, for example) and transferring it to the good guy (DOJ attorney). At least Vanwinkle makes a good show of it and argues that the incentives are needed to retain legal talent. You just come right out and say it--people like my parents are more deserving and I am going to use government power to redistribute wealth accordingly.

When a business clears more profit than is necessary to incent them to produce their product or service that is called a windfall profit. That's a bad thing. It's no different when you apply it to individuals at the DOJ.

[Always Credited]

The argument that "lots of people want these jobs" therefore no program should ameliorate the salary discrepancies holds no weight.

Holds no weight? You are saying that even though there is NO DEMONSTRATED NEED to further incentivize individuals to a particular job, we ought to give them these extra goodies because you deem them more deserving. That's nothing more than a transfer payment to somebody you think is a good person, taking $$$ from the undeserving taxpayers (those evil businesses and big law lawyers, for example) and transferring it to the good guy (DOJ attorney). At least Vanwinkle makes a good show of it and argues that the incentives are needed to retain legal talent. You just come right out and say it--people like my parents are more deserving and I am going to use government power to redistribute wealth accordingly.

When a business clears more profit than is necessary to incent them to produce their product or service that is called a windfall profit. That's a bad thing. It's no different when you apply it to individuals at the DOJ.

You give them the "extra goodies" because it costs upwards of $200,000 to get a job that pays $60,000. You can argue the position all you want, really, no one here cares how you feel politically/socially; but at least get it right.

[Wooster33]

You give them the "extra goodies" because it costs upwards of $200,000 to get a job that pays $60,000. You can argue the position all you want, really, no one here cares how you feel politically/socially; but at least get it right.

WRONG. Several options exist: Don't go to a school that costs 200K! Shocking, I know! Attend a school outside of the T14 to reduce your debt load! OR work in the private sector and enter DOJ after your debt is paid down (very common).

You somehow think you are entitled to enter your dream job without any sacrifice--without paying for your education first or without attending a lesser ranked school that gives you scholarship $$$.

[jks289]

The argument that "lots of people want these jobs" therefore no program should ameliorate the salary discrepancies holds no weight.

Holds no weight? You are saying that even though there is NO DEMONSTRATED NEED to further incentivize individuals to a particular job, we ought to give them these extra goodies because you deem them more deserving. That's nothing more than a transfer payment to somebody you think is a good person, taking $$$ from the undeserving taxpayers (those evil businesses and big law lawyers, for example) and transferring it to the good guy (DOJ attorney). At least Vanwinkle makes a good show of it and argues that the incentives are needed to retain legal talent. You just come right out and say it--people like my parents are more deserving and I am going to use government power to redistribute wealth accordingly.

When a business clears more profit than is necessary to incent them to produce their product or service that is called a windfall profit. That's a bad thing. It's no different when you apply it to individuals at the DOJ.

You sir, are not very good at this. Are you sure the law is the right field for you? How about you address the full paragraph of reasons I gave before stating your argument "holds no weight." I have pasted them below for your convenience.

"Your "point" doesn't make any sense. Not here or above. So people who make 30K in LegalAid should get no assistance if they love their jobs and other people would be lucky and happy to have them? Public defenders making 60K, performing a vital public service, should bear the same debt burden as the defense attorney making 170K? What is the cutoff and who exactly do you think should decide, besides yourself of course? The argument that "lots of people want these jobs" therefore no program should ameliorate the salary discrepancies holds no weight."

[Wooster33]

You sir, are not very good at this. Are you sure the law is the right field for you? How about you address the full paragraph of reasons I gave before stating your argument "holds no weight." I have pasted them below for your convenience.

If you were intelligent enough to understand my post, you would understand I addressed your "paragraph of reasons" repeatedly. But, hey, I have to admire your honesty--certain people, like your parents, are just more deserving, so you are going to use government power to redistribute wealth to them, even though you agree there is no demonstrated need to further incent qualified individuals into those careers. There it is. That's your position. There isn't really anything I can say to damage your position any more than you already have.

[Always Credited]

You give them the "extra goodies" because it costs upwards of $200,000 to get a job that pays $60,000. You can argue the position all you want, really, no one here cares how you feel politically/socially; but at least get it right.

WRONG. Several options exist: Don't go to a school that costs 200K! Shocking, I know! Attend a school outside of the T14 to reduce your debt load! OR work in the private sector and enter DOJ after your debt is paid down (very common).

You somehow think you are entitled to enter your dream job without any sacrifice--without paying for your education first or without attending a lesser ranked school that gives you scholarship $$$.

I never once told you what I think - don't make ignorant assumptions. I simply corrected you on WHY the policy was made. Go back to your Tea Party protests and stop trying flame an otherwise helpful thread with your blatant anti-IBR bias.

[vanwinkle]

You give them the "extra goodies" because it costs upwards of $200,000 to get a job that pays $60,000. You can argue the position all you want, really, no one here cares how you feel politically/socially; but at least get it right.

WRONG. Several options exist: Don't go to a school that costs 200K! Shocking, I know! Attend a school outside of the T14 to reduce your debt load! OR work in the private sector and enter DOJ after your debt is paid down (very common).

You somehow think you are entitled to enter your dream job without any sacrifice--without paying for your education first or without attending a lesser ranked school that gives you scholarship $$$.

This is the problem: You're focusing on the moral needs of the individual instead of their economic needs, or the economic needs of PI organizations to attract equivalent counsel to their higher-paid private opponents. Also, relying on BigLaw to train people relies on the unworkable bottom-heavy BigLaw business model too much.

[Wooster33]

This is the problem: You're focusing on the moral needs of the individual instead of their economic needs, or the economic needs of PI organizations to attract equivalent counsel to their higher-paid private opponents. Also, relying on BigLaw to train people relies on the unworkable bottom-heavy BigLaw business model too much.

To each according to their needs, right?

Many PI orgs don't even need equivalent counsel anyway. Legal aid isn't cutting edge, sophisticated legal work--it's routine stuff like bankruptcy and divorce and child custody. Others already attract top talent anyway (ACLU). Your argument about needing the best of the best holds water for DOJ. But, of course, they had first rate legal talent anyway.

[ozarkhack]

First, I'd like to point out that this is going really well. Side A almost has Side B convinced.

That said, I can't resist jumping in for this one post.

I don't expect anything less (or more) from people. But there are cases, where somebody really suffers a financial burden, or works long hours without recognition, where I would gladly give them props. But in the case of the DOJ, even though many of them perform very good and necessary work, I'm not going to go out of my way to say they're saints. They are essentially at their dream job, in a highly prestigious position which will open many doors in the future, etc. It's pretty clear they are in the position primarily to advance their own agenda and not that of others, so it's self-serving, even if they are doing some good in the process. I suppose we should also thank our lucky stars that some brave lawyers are willing to be Supreme Court Clerks! What would we do without such selfless public servants! LAWL.

If someone is using IBR to get by while working a pre-PrivateLaw job in the DOJ, they will have to quit IBR when they leave qualifying employment and, of course, pay off both the principal and the interest (which I believe is capitalized) that accrued while they followed a debt-payment plan that was wildly irresponsible given their planned career path. In such cases, these folk have to re-pay the government ... hold ... wait for it ... with INTEREST! Taxpayers win! (If they make too much to qualify for IBR, they must pay it ALL back. If they still qualify -- and use IBR -- they do indeed have their loans cleared away after 25 years. But after such a long time, Uncle Sam almost surely gets more than his initial principal back. Assume SmallLaw $58,000 salary with 1 person home: roughly $156,000 in IBR-adjusted payments over 25 years. Not bad, and that doesn't account for the higher payments lawyer would have to make when he got raises, which surely outpaced the growth of his household.)

If that DOJ lawyer wants to "game" the system and work for 10 years so he/she can "escape" full payment before he/she goes on to become a lawillionaire? Thanks for your service -- we got a $160,000/yr-quality lawyer for much less than that annually and the cost of the difference between, say, $60,000 in IBR payments he likely made over 10 years and the $150,000 in principal he borrowed. (In that case, we're looking, as taxpayers, at paying an extra $9,000/year to hire a BigLaw-competent lawyer to work for the government ... at government rates). Taxpayer spends money, yes, but gets pretty good deal. Taxpayer wins! Also: There probably aren't too many of these lawyers around. I'd wager that most revolving-door types probably spend less than 10 years slumming before going for the big bucks.

Eh. Maybe I'm wrong. But does it matter? I'm pretty certain everybody's got minds made up.

[jks289]

First, I'd like to point out that this is going really well. Side A almost has Side B convinced.

That said, I can't resist jumping in for this one post.

I don't expect anything less (or more) from people. But there are cases, where somebody really suffers a financial burden, or works long hours without recognition, where I would gladly give them props. But in the case of the DOJ, even though many of them perform very good and necessary work, I'm not going to go out of my way to say they're saints. They are essentially at their dream job, in a highly prestigious position which will open many doors in the future, etc. It's pretty clear they are in the position primarily to advance their own agenda and not that of others, so it's self-serving, even if they are doing some good in the process. I suppose we should also thank our lucky stars that some brave lawyers are willing to be Supreme Court Clerks! What would we do without such selfless public servants! LAWL.

If someone is using IBR to get by while working a pre-PrivateLaw job in the DOJ, they will have to quit IBR when they leave qualifying employment and, of course, pay off both the principal and the interest (which I believe is capitalized) that accrued while they followed a debt-payment plan that was wildly irresponsible given their planned career path. In such cases, these folk have to re-pay the government ... hold ... wait for it ... with INTEREST! Taxpayers win! (If they make too much to qualify for IBR, they must pay it ALL back. If they still qualify -- and use IBR -- they do indeed have their loans cleared away after 25 years. But after such a long time, Uncle Sam almost surely gets more than his initial principal back. Assume SmallLaw $58,000 salary with 1 person home: roughly $156,000 in IBR-adjusted payments over 25 years. Not bad, and that doesn't account for the higher payments lawyer would have to make when he got raises, which surely outpaced the growth of his household.)

If that DOJ lawyer wants to "game" the system and work for 10 years so he/she can "escape" full payment before he/she goes on to become a lawillionaire? Thanks for your service -- we got a $160,000/yr-quality lawyer for much less than that annually and the cost of the difference between, say, $60,000 in IBR payments he likely made over 10 years and the $150,000 in principal he borrowed. (In that case, we're looking, as taxpayers, at paying an extra $9,000/year to hire a BigLaw-competent lawyer to work for the government ... at government rates). Taxpayer spends money, yes, but gets pretty good deal. Taxpayer wins! Also: There probably aren't too many of these lawyers around. I'd wager that most revolving-door types probably spend less than 10 years slumming before going for the big bucks.

Eh. Maybe I'm wrong. But does it matter? I'm pretty certain everybody's got minds made up.

Yes, exactly. The government (and taxpayers) MAKES money off the majority of loans. That is what is so baffling about Wooster's position. Then again perhaps I am not "intelligent" enough to understand the economic drawbacks of the program, and too blinded by the entitlement of my ultra-wealthy parents making 120,000 ENTIRE dollars (pre-tax!) after 30 years of public service. I am just greedily promoting a program enacted 35 years after they graduated law school for my own benefit instead of genuinely offended someone would call into question the motivations of public servants who dedicate their careers to upholding the bedrock of our justice system.

[vanwinkle]

Many PI orgs don't even need equivalent counsel anyway. Legal aid isn't cutting edge, sophisticated legal work--it's routine stuff like bankruptcy and divorce and child custody. Others already attract top talent anyway (ACLU). Your argument about needing the best of the best holds water for DOJ. But, of course, they had first rate legal talent anyway.

Some of these statements are ridiculously false, but since I have the sense that your mind is made up on this, I'm not going to try to rebut it.

[Always Credited]

ITT:

[Stringer Bell]

Also, you are confusing (again and again) IBR and the debt forgiveness programs. IBR exists for everyone

It does but if you are not a government or non profit employee your debt dissappears after 25 years (or 20 depending on when you start law school) as opposed to 10 years. I personally take issue with this distinction.