Ugh Student Loans

Here is a Haiku about my feelings on student loans: 

no no no no no

no no no no no no

no no no no no 

But all that aside- "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that one-fourth of the American workforce may be eligible for repayment or loan-forgiveness programs, the Associated Press reported last month."

So maybe there’s some hope.

Date: December 8^th  

Title: Student loan forgiveness: What you don't know (but should)

News Source: USA TODAY

Article Date: 12:02 p.m. EST December 6, 2013

Author of Article: Emily Atteberry, USATODAY

Summary: The article is nifty. It helps one understand a way around student loans (in a sense) and makes them seem less ominous and scary.

Issue: Student loans can be crippling but there are ways to lessen the burden.

• Become a public teacher in a low income area
• Join the military
• Get a non profit job

Argument: No everyone wants to join the army or get a non profit job.

Claim: Well, there’s always the thrifty Apply for the Income-Based Repayment Plan that I just learned about

·         The program adjusts students' monthly loan payments to be no more than 15% of their "discretionary" income (the amount of money they make that falls above the federal poverty level).

·          Simply talk to your loan provider

• It's entirely possible, Maylotte says, that some recent graduates make so little that they qualify to make $0 payments.

Analysis:  So I still hate student loans and the idea that college tuitions have increased so greatly still makes me really mad but… this article is like a nice breeze. At least I know I can get some relief from the income based repayment plan if it boils down to having a lot of student debt (fingers crossed it doesn’t). So this article is really great to be honest. The subject still makes my toes curl but at least now I feel like I’m at the beach instead of freezing in no man’s land.

Relate to economic concepts: Well, if people have less to pay off after college (or even nothing to pay off wow) they will be more likely to spend money and feel safe and secure. More money put into the economy means a healthier economy which is greatly needed after so many lost faith after the crash (see my previous article about people not investing in the economy.)

Sweeten the Paycheck

Date: Sunday, November 10, 2013

Title: Supporters Say Minimum Wage Hike Gaining Support
News source: NPR
Article date: November 06, 2013 7:03 PM

Author of article: Marilyn Geewax

Summary: More than 6 in 10 voters in New Jersey approved an increase in their state's minimum hourly wage. In January, the wage will rise to $8.25, well above the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour.

Issue: Raising the minimum wage could have very positive and very negative effects.

Argument: "We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day's work with honest wages," Obama said. "But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year."   Vs.   "When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it," Boehner said. "At a time when the American people are still asking the question, 'Where are the jobs?' why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?"

Claim: Raising the price no matter good or bad, will affect business owners.

Supporting evidence:

• "Labor costs are one of the most significant line items for restaurants," Melvin Sickler, who owns franchises of the Auntie Anne's Pretzels and Cinnabon brands, told the Senate at a March hearing on wages. A round of federally forced wage increases "would be very difficult for my business to withstand."
• One supporter, Dan Preston, co-owner of Telequest Inc., a video company in Princeton, N.J., released a statement saying: "The costs of higher wages are offset through greater consumer demand, increased employee productivity and substantial savings from reduced employee turnover, for example."
• Polls typically show that minimum wage hikes win the support of at least 2 out of 3 voters. For example, a Gallup poll taken earlier this year showed 71 percent of Americans would approve a wage hike.

 

Analysis: I had a summer job. I earned minimum wage. I was a dog watcher and there was good and bad but the bad would have felt a lot better if I was getting more money. The paychecks sure would’ve been nicer. I do understand that it would have affected the owner of the business. It was run by her alone and she had five dogs herself. It was understandable that she could only pay me minimum wage. However there were adults working there. They had apparently worked there a long time so perhaps their pay was higher, however if it wasn’t it would be very difficult to work there I think. Minimum wage is not enough for someone living on their own, and supporting themselves.  

Relate to economic concepts: If minimum wage was to increase people might feel like they had more ‘spending money’ they would then put more money back into the economy through purchasing things. This would make for a healthier economy.

uh oh

Date: Sunday November 3^{rd 2013}

Title: Obamacare delay would send rates soaring
News source: CNN MONEY
Article date: Published: November 1, 2013: 7:02 AM ET
Author of article: Tami Luhby

Summary: Due to major technical problems having to do with Obamacare republicans and some democrats in congress want to give individuals more time to sign up for Obamacare due to difficult enrollment. However delaying Obamacare by just a few months could send insurance premiums through the roof.

Issue: Because of the delay less people will have insurance by the end of 2013 and because of this insurance premiums will have to rise in order to not lose money.

Claims:

• It's possible some insurers could appeal to state and federal regulators to increase the premiums mid-year, but there's not a lot of precedent for that, said Yevgeniy Feyman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank.
• Under the current plan, open enrollment will end March 31, allowing insurers to base their 2015 rates on the risk pool of their 2014 enrollees. If the mandate is delayed and that risk pool is made up of mostly older, unhealthy people, insurers will jack up their premiums.

 

Argument: It’s fair to give people extra time due to technical issues vs. this will hurt the people who were able to sign up and who sign up later on.

Supporting evidence:

• “Insurers set their rates for 2014 assuming that all Americans would be subject to the individual mandate, which requires them to get health insurance or face penalties.”
• Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers must provide coverage to everyone -- even the sickest people -- which would greatly increase insurers' risk and cost.
• if the mandate were delayed by a year, many of those lower-cost folks may not sign up. About 2 million fewer people would would obtain coverage in the individual market, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

 

Analysis: This is a tough one. I think it’s really not fair to punish people for not being able to do something do to a technical issue. It’s bad to punish someone for something that is not their fault. I also don’t feel too bad for insurance companies. Because they were using young couples use of their plans to their own benefit anyway. They were being sneaky. I do feel bad for those who will be affected by the rise if it does happen because it’s also not their fault that the younger people were delayed signing up.

Relate to economic concepts: If people are spending more money on insurance they will likely but less money into the economy. That's not good.

Would you like a shot of petition in that latte?

Date: Sunday, October 13, 2013

Title: Starbucks petition takes on government shutdown
News source: USA TODAY
Article date: Published: October 10, 2013
Author of article: Bruce Horovitz

 

Summary: So Starbucks CEO is going to have his customers fill out a petition for the people of the government. It is a way to chastise the government and also make his customers feel empowered. Genius.

 

Issue: The real issue is that the government is shut down. Starbucks’s CEO is trying to do something about it.

 

Argument: the gov’t will listen vs. this is a bunch of hooey/publicity stunt.

 

Supporting evidence:

“The petition asks officials to:

• Reopen the government.
• Pay our national debts on time.
• Pass a long-term budget deal by the end of 2013.”

·         Schultz declined to estimate how many signatures he hopes to gather. "I don't have a goal," he says. "But I assure you, we'll have a lot of signatures."

·         Roughly 20 million customers are expected to visit Starbucks' 11,000-plus U.S. stores in the next three days.

·         Schultz says his goal is not to make Starbucks a national hub to take on cultural issues.

 

Claims:

• "But I assure you, we'll have a lot of signatures." – Shultz

He is supported by the fact that tons of people visit Starbucks. Typically those who walk into Starbucks are of all ages but many of them have strong personalities and opinions and of course they will want to voice them.

• Frustrated with the inability of the federal government to resolve its ongoing budget stalemate, the nation's largest coffee chain will become a de facto headquarters in the next several days for a megapetition that Starbucks vows it will share with Washington officials.

 --- yes, yes, ok. They will “share it”. But how exactly? Is Shultz buddies with them or something? Like what are they just going to fax in the signatures? I’m just really confused on how they are going to get the survey to anyone that actually cares about it.

 

Analysis: This is a good thing, whether or not the petition even gets to the government or does anything if it does it will at least make people feel heard. I think this will take a little anger out of the American public.

 

Relate to economic concepts: The government shut down has been bad. That’s really all there is to say. It’s been bad for the government and it’s been bad for the people of America and if this petition did anything to stop the shut down it could really help America’s economy. And although I highly doubt the petition will do anything it is a very good idea and outlet for people’s frustrations.

well I'm a little freaked out now

Date: 10/06/13

Title: The Great Reset: Five years after the economic collapse

News source: NewsOk

Article date: Published: October 6, 2013

Author of article: BY BERNARD CONDON

Summary: People are still being very cautious after the economic collapse five years ago, they are retreating from stocks, shunning debt, and hoarding cash. Even though economic good times have returned people are being extremely frugal and it is hurting the economy. The lack of spending is making the economy weaker which could lead to many more problems. It just seems like people have been burned before so they are trying to stay safe.

Issue: Shunning debt and spending less can be good for one family's finances. When hundreds of millions do it together, it can starve the global economy.

Argument: spend more money to support the economy vs. don’t invest in the economy it failed you already

Supporting evidence:

·         “It doesn't take very much to destroy confidence, but it takes an awful lot to build it back,” says Ian Bright

·         “The AP analyzed data showing what consumers did with their money in the five years before the Great Recession began in December 2007 and in the five years that followed, through the end of 2012. The focus was on the world's 10 biggest economies, which have half the world's population and 65 percent of global gross domestic product.”

·         “Debt per adult in the 10 countries fell 1 percent in the 4½ years after 2007.”

Claims:

“We had credit cards and we didn't worry about a thing,” says Madeleine, 55. –but now even though most of the debt is gone, overspending is happening less and less frequently. “My brokers said they were really safe, but they weren't,” says Stonecipher, 59, a substitute schoolteacher. – So this person lost something and doesn’t want to take the chance of losing anything (mostly money I assume) again.

Analysis: I predict that if people don’t spend more money the economy could dip down to scary levels again – however steps should have been taken –honestly the people who rely on the economy and trading are sort of burying themselves here, it was their fault that it happened. Now they have to lay in the bed they made.

Relate to economic concepts: if the economy crashes again because of lack of spending it will make the problem worse and we will continue a downward circling spiral.
Scary stuff that idea.

it's just a t-shirt

Title: Controversial Compton Shirts

Source: Huffington Post

Author:  Alexis Kleinman

Article date: 9/25/13

What? Forever 21, has made shirts that say Compton, and N.W.A (which is a famous rap group from Compton) and a lot of people were upset. Many took to twitter and were outraged not only at the exploitation (?) of Compton but the fact that the models sporting the shirts were skinny white girls. One person even said that a skinny white girl would know what N.W.A was. But all misplaced anger aside, the uproar worked. Forever 21 pulled the line. Losing money and needing to replace a line will cost forever 21 greatly.

Quotes:

·      “A quick google search for "Forever 21 Compton tee" leads to a page on the store's website that reads "We're sorry. This item is no longer available." The same thing happens if you search for "Forever 21 NWA tee."

·      From Twitter:

“got the three skinniest, whitest looking models they could find and dressed them up in NWA shirts. WTF”

“They didn’t even use a black model"

“these little teenage white chick’s have no idea what NWA is.”

Argument:

Its “cultural appropriation.” Pull the line V.S who cares, it’s just a city, just a music group.

This relates to economics because consumer is king. All these people who supposedly shop at forever 21 were upset so forever 21 listened and pulled the Compton line. The people voted with their money for the product to be removed so it was.

This will also affect forever 21’s budget. By spending money on design and production and making none back from consumers they are losing large amounts of capital. Perhaps future production will suffer.

 Personally I feel that it shouldn’t matter. I mean I understand why forever 21 pulled the line – they want to be on the good side of media etc, but it’s equally as wrong to be upset that the clothes were on white models as it is to exploit a culture. I feel that forever 21 did what it had to, but the whole thing is just kind of stupid. Like what’s the big deal really? Maybe it’s a good thing; maybe it will actually spread the word of Compton. Couldn’t Compton use good publicity after so much negative?

*** Also, Mrs. Boettcher please check your email, I emailed you about some grade issues. ***

Thanks Home Depot

Title: Part-Timers Losing Health Insurance May Want To Thank Their Companies

News source: Yahoo News

Article date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:03 PM EDT

Author of article: Rick Newman

Summary:  Home Depot (HD) and Trader Joe’s have decided to stop offering health insurance for part-time employees, moving them over to Obamacare instead.

Issue: Employees who are having their health care dropped so that they can get ObamaCare are worried. But their employer’s choice could actually save them money.

·      Argument: It’s an excuse to drop their employee’s health care vs. they are actually looking out for their employees.

Supporting evidence:

·      “A single parent with three kids and an annual income of $25,000, for instance, could get an $8,800 insurance plan for a total out-of-pocket cost of $500 per year. Subsidies, in other words, cover 94% of the cost. Try to beat that on part-time pay.

·      “You only qualify for such deals if you’re not able to get coverage through your employer. So if you’re a part-timer whose company canceled your watered-down insurance coverage, it may have actually done you a favor.”

Claims: Obamacare was designed to make decent health insurance affordable for people who otherwise can’t afford it, the program subsidizes the cost of insurance based on your income, with the largest subsidies going to those with the lowest incomes.

Analysis: It seems clear to me that, they are being nice. Companies like Home Depot and Trader Joe’s have a really good reputation for employee benefits even for their many half time employees. It seems to me that they wouldn’t just flip in a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde way and just become evil and not want the best for their employees. It seems like they are really trying to help and doing them a favor by dropping them. According to the statistics and data if they weren’t dropped they would either pay a lot more or get a lot less benefits. Not to mention they’ve have to actually understand what kind of insurance they want while choosing from the many coverage options. This is a good thing.

Relate to economic concepts: Obamacare will economically improve people’s lives on a personal level.  As someone who didn’t have health insurance for year up until this year I know that it’s always in the back of your mind that if something bad happened to you – you wouldn’t have that much money to fix it. On an economic level people will be paying less for insurance (or getting insurance for the first time) but when people pay less they have extra money. This extra money will go towards other things and help the economy grow. We’re going to have a healthier economy because of Obamacare, not to mention healthier people.