I don't know how the system works in the States, so it's difficult to comment. The way it worked for me was that there was a minimum income threshold where I was permitted to defer payment but as soon as I was earning beyond that threshold I was stung with quite steep monthly repayments. I actually spent many years where I was earning below the threshold but I chose not to defer and I've now repaid the loans in full, but most people don't do that of course. The system has now changed and it's effectively more like a graduate tax. A small proportion of your salary is deducted at source and the more you earn the more you repay each month, but unless you're on a very high salary then the chances are that the repayments are not going to do much more than cover the interest, so if you only earn a modest salary then you'll be making student loan repayments until you retire and will end up paying way more back over the course of your working life than you would have done if you'd done what I did and repay the full amount over a shorter period. It seems a little unfair to me, but I know plenty of people who are subject to this and they don't seem to care because it's all deducted at source and they barely notice it, whereas the £130 a month that I had to pay back made a massive dent in my personal finances. Either way though, it's quite possible to set up systems to ensure that student loans are repaid.

Sassenach wrote:Either way though, it's quite possible to set up systems to ensure that student loans are repaid.

I agree. However, it's the people shouting about making college free that have undermined any attempt to make sure the loans get repaid. The default rate is about 1/9 and that is a reduction from last year. And, there are means of "forgiveness." http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pe ... -loans.asp

Of course, forgiveness means "taxpayers pick up the tab."

freeman3 wrote:Texas's economic boom is built on a mountain of oil (one-third of US production). About three million barrels a day. Heck, they could join OPEC. Not a good model to follow since no one else has comparable oil production.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/plunging-oi ... 1420428781

California is also complete with natural resources, including oil (that you resist). There are a lot of good blue collar jobs in oil and gas production and refinery. Also, by lowering energy costs you are more likely to retain the factory jobs in the US that you complain about being insufficient.

A lot of top private schools will provide full scholarships to truly talented students who are poor, especially if they are minorities. The notion that you have to be born into wealth to make it on Wall Street is not true.

rayjay

What's the reason why Texas has one of the largest GDP's in the world, and why is it gaining on California?

Who is benefitting from the oil wealth Ray?

The latest poverty data released today by the Census Bureau paint a dismal picture of Texas.
Almost one in five (18.5%) Texans lived below the poverty level (e.g., a family of four earning less than $22,811 per year) last year, according to the 2011 American Community Survey. Even more alarming, over one in four (26.6%) children in Texas lived in poverty. Nationally, the number of people living in poverty reached the highest point in 50 years.
One in five Texans in urban areas was poor, and one in eight in rural areas. Texas is home to four of the five of the poorest metropolitan areas in the country. Sadly, the poorest place to live in the United States is in the Mc-Allen-Edinburg-Mission area.
As the ranks of the poor grew, so did the gap between the rich and the poor. Income inequality increased in 20 states including Texas, which has the 7th-highest income gap in the nation. While the number of wealthy households grew in 2011, an even greater number saw their earnings fall to the lowest levels. Overall, Texas households saw their incomes shrink, with median income falling 1.2% to $49,392

.

http://tfbn.org/rapid-reaction-poverty-in-texas-cities/

Texas is the gold standard for income inequality. The highest uninsured rate, money spent on education, welfare rates.
And the 46th ranked state for poverty

Texas's population has doubled in 35 years. They must be doing something right. I'm guessing they've created as many jobs as all of Canada in that period of time (probably with less pollution).

rickyp wrote:Texas is the gold standard for income inequality.

I'm sure Cuba is way better.

Ricky:

Who is benefitting from the oil wealth Ray?

Everyone. That's why people are moving there.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Who is benefitting from the oil wealth Ray?

Everyone. That's why people are moving there.

Of course, rickyp is very worried that wealthy people not benefit from anything. Maybe he should band all the poor people together and pool their resources to invest in oil exploration?

This constant tirade about income inequality grows tiresome, Comrade Rickyp.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Who is benefitting from the oil wealth Ray?

Everyone. That's why people are moving there.

Of course, rickyp is very worried that wealthy people not benefit from anything. Maybe he should band all the poor people together and pool their resources to invest in oil exploration?

This constant tirade about income inequality grows tiresome, Comrade Rickyp.

Yes.

Some of it is semantics. The left should focus on poverty as opposed to income inequality. Eradicating poverty is a noble cause, even if it is impossible. Eradicating income inequality makes no sense.

rayjay

Eradicating income inequality makes no sense

It makes sense to the middle class who have seen their standard of living diminished since 1981.
It makes sense to an economy that is dependent largely on the domestic consumer sector. A sector that takes a hit when less income is available to the middle classes and working poor because they are the one's spending and creating this economy.
And it makes sense to these guys.
The opportunity gap is the defining issue of our time," he said, according to The New York Times. "More Americans are stuck at their income levels than ever before." Jeb Bush

We're facing right now a divided America when it comes to the economy. It is true that the top 1% are doing great under Barack Obama. Today, the top 1% earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928,"

Ted Cruz

“The wealthy are doing really well. They’re practicing trickle-down economics now.”

Paul Ryan

It also makes sense to Thomas Piketty... who pointed out that income inequality slows economic growth, and cements poverty.
If income distribution was at the levels in the 60's you would see growth like the 60's .
In periods of growth you can attack deficits, while expanding services that free up more people to contribute to economic activity.

Your use of Texas as an example of growth is apt if what you want is growth in minimum wage jobs. Texas has the largest share of its population working in minimum wage jobs than any state save Idaho. These people also enjoy the least benefits and the least job security.

per Wiki, the 4 states (including DOC) with the highest gini coefficient are blue (Wash D.C., NY, Mass, CT) whereas the 3 most equal states are red (Alaska, Wyoming, and Utah). Perhaps it is more complicated than your bumper sticker arguments suggest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... oefficient

People are moving to Texas and they are leaving Michigan.

Ricky:

The opportunity gap is the defining issue of our time," he said, according to The New York Times. "More Americans are stuck at their income levels than ever before." Jeb Bush

I understand; but "opportunity gap" is not the same thing as "income inequality".

Ricky:

If income distribution was at the levels in the 60's you would see growth like the 60's .

How come the 70's didn't have faster growth? Income distribution was just fine then.

For that matter, how come Europe doesn't have faster growth? Their income distribution is more equal than the US.

Ricky:

In periods of growth you can attack deficits, while expanding services that free up more people to contribute to economic activity.

Yes, growth is good. Which is growing faster: Texas or Illinois? But again "growth" is not the same thing as "income inequality".

If everyone makes 12K a year there is no inequality. Is that what RickyP is asking for?

rayjay

How come the 70's didn't have faster growth? Income distribution was just fine then

1. The energy shortage caused by the OPEC embargo. (The embargo also affected the trade policies of other commodities, creating uncertainty there too.)
2. The returning Viet Nam vets came back with little assistance. Compared to the socialized GI Bill that provided free education, health care and low interest business loans for returning white military personnel after WWII Viet Nam vets struggled with high unemployment, rather poor health care and a lot of mental illness.
3. Women entered the work force and there wasn't the labor demand that required all of them. With a wave of illegal immigrants as well, wages began to decline. (Narrowing the Gini coefficient somewhat).

ray

For that matter, how come Europe doesn't have faster growth? Their income distribution is more equal than the US

Europe is not one nation. Some countries have done much better than others... Policies differ and income inequality differs between them. And the actual standard of living varies a lot from nation to nation to start with...
Who would you like to compare? Denmark? Sweden? Germany?
Or Greece? Spain? or Macedonia?
Then there's demographics.
One problem they have had is that in many nations the population has not been growing. If the population does not grow, the economy does not, not does it really need to...
Japan is facing a greatly shrinking economy based on demographics.
There's also the theory that austerity measures imposed by the World Bank and the EU on some nations with high debt has been counter productive... Generally