The Student Loan Debt Crisis Is About to Get Worse - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/the-student-loan-debt-crisis-is-about-to-get-worse?srnd=premium <comment><USER4> I have strong mixed feelings about the student loan situation.

First I don't think you should have to incur a huge amount of debt to go to school, it's terrible.

At the same time I worked with a lot of students at a past job where we did internships and gave them experience and I was kind of shocked by their attitude about them, mostly by how much a victim they were of it all... while incurring more and more debt.

There was very much what I interpreted as a sort of "I was told I'd make a ton of money if I did X, and so I had to take out all these loans, and this sucks.". The level of victimization they felt was immense, like they had no choice but to sign on the dotted line.... and yet here were many of them seemingly choosing to keep at it incurring debt, not really curious about any other options / didn't want to do anything else. Many straight up didn't even have a job / many never had one ... this was kinda surprising to me as I never stopped working during school (to be clear I'm not saying anyone has to do it my way).

There was another attitude that they felt life was like "If I push button X" (that would be go to school) "Then I get Y" (job, money, etc) and if it didn't work that easily then it was just terrible.

Something needs to be done about the situation over all but it strikes me that many students perspective is way off as far as how the world works career wise (it's not push button get thing for most of us) and while they seem to feel they are victims... they also dive head long into the situation / debt and many don't acknowledge their own participation .... I worry that if participants aren't "participating" (with finances and even career) not much will change.

<comment><USER5> I recently discussed this with a person who was continuing to get student loans after already being under a mountain of debt and recognizing that their job prospects were not as lucrative as they hoped. I asked them why they were doubling down when it was obvious they were in a bad situation and making it worse. They said they had invested too much to choose another path.

This person has a bachelor's in economics and is about to finish a master's in finance. We conflate "an education" with "being educated" far too much.

I graduated 6 years ago with zero debt and no help from parents, because I actually looked into costs / benefits before starting school, picked a cheap school, and worked the whole time. I really don't know how we think it's acceptable for people to be 18 and not capable of making these decisions. You can vote and join the military, but you can't recognize financial servitude like this. They're being failed long before they get to college.

<comment><USER6> _They said they had invested too much to choose another path.

This person has a bachelor's in economics_

Man, of all people that ought to know about the "sunk cost" fallacy...

<comment><USER7> This particular individual may have fallen prey to it. However, I think students in similar situations face something a bit more nuanced than the sunk cost fallacy.

If you accept that middle-income, professional jobs are decreasing relative to lower-income and higher-income positions, then many students with a non- trivial amount of debt are in a trap. For example, say you graduate with a B.A., $120K in debt, and the only job you can get out of school pays ~40K, but low upward mobility long-term (pay-wise).

Your options are (for this hypothetical):

(1) Take the ~40K job with low upward mobility long-term.

(2) Purchase a $120K graduate degree that offers a 65% chance at a six-figure job out of school (and high upward mobility long-term) and a 30% chance of a ~$60K job (and medium upward mobility long-term) and a 5% chance of ending up in outcome (1).

Which is more rational?

Now, we could get into questions of how well this maps to reality, or what the expected value of each outcome is, or how to even compute expected value in a situation with myriad messy variables and reductionist assumptions, etc. Regardless, I think we can say that if income and upward mobility resemble a barbell distribution more than a normal distribution, then we have defeasible justification for believing the following:

(Proposition) A non-trivial number of students face decision traps which lead to a choice less akin to the sunk cost fallacy than a non-confident choice when living between 'a rock and a hard place'.

At times, people will say something about having invested so much already that their decision is pretty much pre-determined even though they're attempting to convey having made a non-confident choice after being stuck between 'a rock and a hard place'.

<comment><USER8> Your number 2 scenario is dead wrong. The reason the person is in that scenario in the first place is because they mis-judged the payoff from having the first degree. The likelihood they misjudge the second degree is just as high.

In fact let's look at it: what's the probability that given your inability to gain one of the lucrative jobs at this level of education you can gain one with a higher level of eduction? Well we can speculate, a higher level of education can be sought for two reasons: you're acadmically gifted and genuinely want to get more education, or you're not academically gifted and you want the magic fairy wand to wave to get into Brothers and Brothers LLP. Well let's face it, you're in group number 2, and it's the people in group 1 who are the actual successful candidates. So given that your pay off looks way off. You won't get the top jobs - you're not good enough, you won't get the medium jobs - you're overqualified, and you won't get the cheap jobs - <USER2> can't afford to work for that amount.

<comment><USER7> (1) Your group number 2 describes a sizeable portion of law school graduates who actually do end up in six-figure corporate jobs, as well as a decent (though smaller) portion of medical school students. Unless, only those persons who obtain the six-figure jobs out of graduate school are academically gifted. This would mean, however, that sizeable portions of the graduating classes of many such schools (even just the elite ones) harbor non- academically-gifted students. That's not an indefensible position. However, it would be rather odd and not terribly convincing on its face, as presumably only the academically gifted could have arrived there in the first place.

(2) Even assuming your argument goes through successfully, it is irrelevant to whether the person committed the sunk cost fallacy, which is the issue under discussion. Now, you could argue that subjective assessments of expected value always track the true underlying expected value (i.e. the actual expected value for any individual's objective abilities). In that case, all non- academically-gifted students who chose further education would likely be committing the sunk cost fallacy. That's not the case though, and you know that. Or you should, because it is prima facie absurd.

(3) It is relatively uncontroversial that there is a substantive disconnect between the supply of graduates and the number of jobs paying a salary justifiably commensurate with the debt-levels we are seeing. This has a couple of knock-on effects. For example, an across the board devaluing of degrees, which unjustifiably increases hiring requirements for lucrative professional jobs, further exacerbating prestige whoring, etc. This turns high school seniors deciding to attend elite private schools into even greater gamblers as the cost of an initial degree rises. Maybe they are or maybe they aren't rational to take that gamble (Are gambles by definition irrational? If so, pick a different term.). However, after having taken that gamble and come up short, they don't automatically become irrational in taking it again. Or, at least, the irrationality wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the sunk cost fallacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was discussing student loans and value of a college education with friends the other day. We were discussing whether or not I would recommend college to someone today. My conclusion is that TODAY I would still as long as that person has the means to do so without any loans.

But, then we started discussing whether I would push my children to go. My answer is that I hope I don't need to. Even though I have some amount of college savings for my kids, I don't think it will be enough to let them choose their school freely and I would much rather that money go towards starting them out in their career or family or whatever they choose.

My hope is that when it is time for them to start their adult life that there will either be enough cheap or free alternative forms of education or that the stigma of not having a degree will have lessened. Realistically, I don't think the situation will have changed in that time.

My own experience is complicated because I took out loans--which I greatly regret--but also likely have my career to thank for it. I had a full-tuition scholarship to the school of my choice, but opted to go to another school my parents wanted me at; when I eventually transferred back to my original choice I had lost the scholarship. If I had to do it again today I would definitely start with a 2 year local college education and then work hard through the remaining years to finish debt-free.

<comment><USER10> The main reasons to get a degree are:

-. To show you can complete a big, multi year project that's full of doing stuff you don't like

-. To get past HR screenings

-. If you ever want a chance to reach Executive level jobs, you need to have a degree, for the perception of nothing else.

This debate has been going on for a long time, despite this being presented as a recent thing, and it always comes down to those things. While the tech- minded here might want to see it from a strictly educational standpoint, these are human/societal reasons that are quite important.

<comment><USER11> I don't have a degree and I'm 10+ years deep into my career. What has started to stand out for me in recent years is that there are holes in my experience that my college-educated peers don't have to deal with. Granted I never had to deal with student loans so I guess there's a tradeoff. But the problem with these education "holes" is that they hit you right out of left field when you least expect it.

<comment><USER12> What do you feel are the gaps in your education? Do you think taking an online course would help with them?

I suggest learning a little about data structures and algorithms, each are typically one semester courses in undergrad. You might supplement it with operating systems and distributed computing, though data structures should be a primary focus.

<comment><USER11> I've tried and failed going back school enough times to know it doesn't work for me. Certification courses & clinics have proven worthwhile in the past though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Broadly, student loan debt is an economic supply/demand issue. The government keeps supplying loans and (of course!!) schools continue to raise "tuition" as the supply of monies is nearly endless.

A good first step would be to reduce the supply of loan dollars, which would lower the number of students who can pay for college (however, no politician would sign up for that) and theoretically lower prices.

There's also a stigma in the US about "blue collar" jobs, which is absolutely pathetic. Plenty of people in America support their families (quite well) working in blue collar industries.

As an example, plumbers in my area (New England) can essentially demand their own rate and take on work as they desire. Don't want to pay their quote hourly rate? Well then, you can fuck right off and good luck finding another plumber in the next 2 weeks.

We need to do away with the mentality that you HAVE to go to college, because you don't and the majority of those who do are attending are doing so because they are naive and don't know any better.

<comment><USER14> Personally, I want us to find a way to hold universities accountable for handing out bullshit degrees that aren't remotely worth what they charge.

A dead give-away that there is a problem is that every degree costs the same to acquire. That is insane and archaic.

<comment><USER15> Why not the banks who are giving out the risky loans? They know a degree in underwater basket weaving isn't going to pay off a $100k loan. In most other circumstances a bank does a risk analysis. And it isn't like they don't know what degree the borrower is pursuing.

While the banks are giving money the universities are incentivized (because they are profit seeking) to increase prices and provide overpriced degrees.

<comment><USER16> Student loans are guaranteed by the federal government, right? Thats why banks dont care. Its just the private student loans banks worry about.

<comment><USER17> correct: [https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/](https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/)

this is the subprime bubble all over again, with the govt providing a risk free opportunity for private entities to maintain the insane price runaway until it all comes crashing down.

<comment><USER18> Incorrect. The private loans are no longer guaranteed by the government: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Aid_and_Fiscal_Respons...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Aid_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wish I understood the community college path when I went to school - as in get all your GEs and intro courses out of the way then finish at a 4 year university. It'd be a lie to say I hadn't heard of it, but the high school I went to told all students that taking such a path would damage their career. Most of the trouble I had with college was me being a stupid 18/19 year old, and I wish I'd done in a place that wasn't so expensive.

Thankfully I got a fantastic job that lets me pay it off rather quickly, but it feels weird to be living more or less paycheck to paycheck working at a tech giant ('emergency fund' is mainly not spending any bonus money). I realize I'm damn lucky, and I worked (and still do work) damn hard, but I just can't help but feel something is a bit wrong with the whole situation.

My parents both went to college, but they were able to leave school, my dad being the only one to get a job of the two of them (at low pay for the time) in the economic recession of the early 90's, and they managed to pay off their student loans and buy a house within two years of graduating. Yet here I am, nearly 3 years after graduating living paycheck to paycheck with my cat in my little studio apartment.

Part of it is my choice, I didn't have to elect to pay off my loans in 5 years, could've taken a longer note, but I hate being in debt. I hate the concept. Owing more money than I could reasonably produce at any given moment bothers the hell out of me.

<comment><USER20> The secret no one tells anyone: the name on the piece of paper at the end is all that matters, and even then, 98% of employers really don't give a damn about the school you went to, especially after you get that first post- graduation job.

<comment><USER21> This seems incredibly hard to shake. Whenever the discussion of affording college comes up I bring up the affordable schools I know of, which I count as anything with less than $10k of tuition and fees a year. The response is usually that you will never get a good job if you attend one of those schools. It's as if somewhere it gets into peoples minds that if you don't spend $40k on tuition a year then your education was worthless.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps if you think success is only working at a FAANG or a unicorn in SF, this may be true, but there's way too many people making great incomes to disprove that.

<comment><USER21> True. I'm a dropout that's making great income, but not at a FAANG or a unicorn. Honestly i'm tempted to get a job at one of those just to be sure I could do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It is interesting to consider what we could be spending our money on instead of tax cuts for the wealthy and war:

"Make public colleges and universities tuition-free for working families, cut student loan interest rates in half, and allow every American with student debt to refinance at the lowest interest rate possible. Estimated cost: $60 billion."

[https://www.budget.senate.gov/ranking- member/newsroom/press/...](https://www.budget.senate.gov/ranking- member/newsroom/press/report-if-not-for-republican-policies-the-federal- government-would-be-running-a-surplus)

<comment><USER23> There are 20million college students/yr. $3K/yr/capita seems an underestimate of the cost of their education, since high school costs >$5K/yr/capita.

<comment><USER24> Drop ~5% of those as non-citizens[0].

Drop ?% of those as not falling under "working class".

Adjust $??? billion for existing in-state subsidies, since only marginal cost is relevant.

Of course, add $??? billion when quantity demand explodes when price drops.

[0] [https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/01/number- foreign-...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/01/number-foreign- students-studying-drops/JHb6P59y3Ut0px2VM54JBN/story.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As mentioned down-thread, this is a supply/demand issue. The government loans effectively create an infinite supply of money, so of course tuition goes up to capture all that money.

I have a radical proposition: End student loans.

Get rid of the program outright; don't issue any more loans. Take the money being spent on issuing student loans and instead earmark it to issuing to the states to fund their colleges with the condition that tuition costs lower proportionally. End bankruptcy protection for private student loans, and authorize banks to factor the degree/major into their underwriting.

I'm fully aware that this will take an act of Congress, both figuratively and literally, not to mention likely be politically unpopular. But student loans didn't arrive out of thin air, one or more of acts of Congress created the mess we're in today. It will take them acting again to begin the process of cleaning up.

In the spirit of debate, let's hear why this cannot possibly work or what the problems with it are.

<comment><USER26> You're on the correct track but haven't quite hit the mark.

The condition must be that the cost to a student / family of a student attending for a basic bachelors degree is zero, and that re-taking classes/classes for any unfunded (IE out of state/country) student is up to the actual "production" cost for a funded student.

The balance sheets should be open to the public for audit and inspection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The main story is the overpriced underquality (and often criminal) for-profit "college" industry. This has been well-reported for over 10 years. Why are students STILL getting fooled by this?

The increase in price and loans at real colleges is a relatively minor (but important) problem, and one that could get proper attention if the massive dreck of the for-profit college industry was cleared away.

Do you know anyone who attended a for-profit college in the past 10 years? What fooled them into attending?

<comment><USER27> You are singling out for-profit colleges, which to me does not make sense. I am not sure I agree -- out of state sticker prices at good public universities are not much different from private ones. And in-state costs are not far behind (and it is not just tuition, add books and living expenses).

Most schools, public and private, moved to the model of charging as much as the family can afford (i.e., putting a huge sticker price and refunding the "unaffordable" portion for each family via a much-touted scholarship).

<comment><USER28> You seem to be conflating "private" and "for-profit." Most private schools that are considered respectable are non-profits (at least on paper). When someone says "for-profit college," they mean diploma mills.

<comment><USER27> Agreed and thank you for the correction. Diploma mill industry is indeed the predator. But I think the way to stop it is to force disclosure of total costs, average salaries, etc. Once people see what they actually get from those (a piece of paper) they may be more inclined to shop elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sigh..another one of these "X is about to get worse/is a crisis" type articles

The media has been predicting this since 2012 and yet it refuses to pop. So maybe it's not a bubble, or if it is, the media really sucks at trying to time these things and should stop trying.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=student+loan+crisis+bubble&s...](https://www.google.com/search?q=student+loan+crisis+bubble&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=)

A lot of the debt is secured by the fed govt. Only 8% student loan debt is private.

Second, despite all the doom and gloom over student loan debt and grads not finding good jobs and , a college degree still has a good ROI in terms of higher wages, lower unemployment, and higher lifetimes wealth, versus having no degree. In spite of all the anti-college rhetoric in recent years promoted by the likes of James Altucher and others, this gap has only widened since 2009 in the aftermath of the recession and shows no signs of narrowing.

[https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main- qimg-c093e2248a8c4bc6902d9b...](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main- qimg-c093e2248a8c4bc6902d9b80f1e8feeb)

[https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5772d5ea1800001a00fa2e5...](https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5772d5ea1800001a00fa2e58.png?ops=scalefit_820_noupscale)

[http://greyenlightenment.com/advice-that-you-should- ignore/](http://greyenlightenment.com/advice-that-you-should-ignore/)

Real wages for non-graduates have plunged since 2008

<comment><USER30> >Second, despite all the doom and gloom over student loan debt and grads not finding good jobs and , a college degree still has a good ROI in terms of higher wages, lower unemployment, and higher lifetimes wealth, versus having no degree.

Does it change the framing of this fact if we assume a degree's main value to students is in its signaling power rather than what they learned? In which case ballooning debt is still a really problematic thing because it shows we're dumping money in an arms race which everyone would be better off if we could tone down.

<comment><USER31> If you're familiar with evolution of signaling traits in animals, this isn't actually very surprising. If you have a competitive mate market (where members of one or both sexes compete for the other sex), all excess resources will get funneled into signaling status. The most well known examples are probably peacocks and male birds of paradise, who spend a tremendous amount of energy building extravagant plumage to attract females.

An alien biologist would probably predict that the end state of a competitive, highly differentiated job market is prospects investing excess resources into signaling quality until the marginal return approaches $0.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Let's talk some numbers, because while 1.5T sounds scary, something else is going on. I've posted this finding before, but it seems relevant to this article:

The median defaulter does so with a loan of Just under 10k [1]. It is worth discussing why the median defaulter is unable to pay roughly $100 per month (assuming a 10y payment plan), and how to address that issue. When viewed from this perspective, the problem does not seem insurmountable.

[1] [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education- postsecond...](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education- postsecondary/reports/2017/12/14/444011/student-loan-defaulters/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I have a theory that this is one of the symptoms of the psychological fallacy that many Americans hold with respect to financial health. You've probably all heard the joke about poor and middle class Americans:

"You never meet an American who's not wealthy. They're all just temporarily cash strapped."

It's a joke, but there is some truth to it in that many poor or middle class Americans do think in this manner. So the average American is very well aware of the consequences of debt, and the costs associated with education. But they think the lack of well paying work is a very temporary situation. If you talk to an unemployed or under-employed person, they'll say that they just haven't found work _YET_. (The key word being "yet". Deep down, at an almost unconscious level, the average American believes they will find that job. Or they wouldn't use the word "yet".)

This is not just an issue with college debt by the way. This same psychological quirk is what generates the abnormally high levels of consumption across nearly every sector of the American economy. It's the reason American's buy homes that are a bit more of a financial stretch than prudence would advise. We buy cars that are more pricey than we can really afford. Clothes, trips, consumer goods etc etc etc. On a sub conscious, or maybe even on a conscious- level, we believe our financial health will always get better over time. And, at least in the past, most of the times we've been right. So we can be forgiven for believing the same thing now.

I'm honestly unsure how we would go about addressing that issue when it rears its head in college financing? Because it is deeply ingrained in us at this point. In my own case, I went to the University of Wisconsin for free. So while I know it's not a popular idea, I really do think we might be well served to look at how we might enable free bachelor's level education for people _without_ requiring them to be freak athletes or super intelligent or whatever.

<comment><USER34> > "You never meet an American who's not wealthy. They're all just temporarily > cash strapped."

Not that I disagree, but as a counterpoint: Nearly everyone I know who is financially successful (and didn't inherit any significant wealth) has spent a part of their post-college existence in this position. This is in no way representative or scientific, but the point is that "temporarily cash strapped" is a reality and not a fantasy for a nontrivial number of people, and the perception of unlimited upward mobility extends past your twenties. It's not just folk wisdom for many, it's supported by some degree of experience.

<comment><USER33> Yep.

That's why I wrote:

> _we believe our financial health will always get better over time. And, at > least in the past, most of the times we 've been right. So we can be > forgiven for believing the same thing now..._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's unclear to me that student loans present meaningful systemic risk.

Mortgage defaults rather obviously have a knock on effect in prices for homes, which huge numbers of people rely on (across the globe) for security, retirement, etc.

By contrast, half of the country defaulting on student loans doesn't affect anyone other than the issuers of said loans. Are people indirectly investing in these issuers?

<comment><USER36> The problem is it's the federal government, thus you the taxpayer are responsible for defaults, which is a much larger swath of the population than just homeowners. The student loan crisis is going to be worse than the sub- prime mortgage issue because it won't be easy for our economy to recover from the downturn. The fall out will be both cultural and systemic. The course- corrective measures would be lenders locking out lower-income families from colleges, leading to a faster collapse of our middle class. Colleges will drop tuition rates slightly but tuition is largely sticky, unlike housing prices. This may even lead to some colleges going out of business. Loans will likely be under-written appropriately, but then degrees will be prioritized based on earnings potential, so only a narrow field of study (medical, lawyers, tech, etc) will be eligible for lending. Schools may price degrees differently, and only invest in those degree programs with the largest earnings potential, to the detriment of many other crucial programs. Ultimately college will become an institution to perpetuate a narrow focus of study, and only to those already in positions of wealth, which will further hasten the collapse of our middle class. We may not even be smart enough to realize what hit us until it does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> A vicious cycle: easy student loan money inflates the cost of tuition, making college less affordable and increasing the demand for easy loan money.

Breaking the cycle is as simple as it is counterintuitive. Abolish federal student loan guarantees and interest payment programs.

<comment><USER38> That or mandate tuition costs. Want federal money, you have to cap tuition and fees. The other thing to keep in mind is that universities have endowments that they could pull from, but the administrative bloat likes to keep raising costs and pushes tuition further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is pretty selfish but every time I see news about student loans I start to worry about having to pay for other people's student loans.

I spent three years cutting everything out of my life that wasn't necessary so that I could pay off my $50,000 in loans because I didn't want to have the debt. It was a Spartan existence indeed.

Now that I've made that sacrifice and come out the other side, it makes me mad to think that I may have to pay for others to pay off their debts as well. Why can't they pay it off themselves? No one forced them to take on the loans. Why is my paycheck being considered for looting?

I would feel taken advantage of too. If I knew I could get someone else to pay off my student loans, I would have used my resources much differently. I would have lived more in the moment instead of hunkering down and paying it off.

Like I said; selfish thoughts. But I can't help but feel a sense of injustice when considering a situation where I have to pay for other debtors student loans.

<comment><USER40> The people bailed out would be people making the loans not taking the loans.

<comment><USER41> It would be both of them, really.

Right now, under US law, you can't declare bankruptcy from student loans. A bailout would imply changing that rule so that we can let people with student debt off of their obligations.

You'd also, natch, be bailing out the people who hold this debt.

I'm really not sure what the path forward is, here. Theoretically, the most important line of defense against a bad loan being made is that the lender doesn't want to lose money, and therefore won't make a bad loan in the first place. This isn't always awesome on its face, because it means that people don't get to buy things they don't have the money for right now. But it's really kind of nice. It also protects people from taking on debts they can't afford, because that translates into default risk. And it protects people from taking on debt to buy things that are overpriced, because that translates into collateral risk.

But at some point we decided that being able to get certain kinds of loans (mortgages and student loans) is very nearly a natural right, because they give access to things that we associate with prosperity (land ownership and a postsecondary education). So then the government sets up programs to greatly reduce the barriers to access to these kinds of loans, by essentially setting up a whole bunch of special rules and programs that make it easy for lenders to ignore default risk. And if you don't care about default risk, you'll make much bigger loans than you would otherwise, which fuels prices getting out of control.

We saw how that went down with housing. Now we're going to see how that goes down with student loans. I'm not sure there are any good answers there. Personally, I _like_ the idea of leaving lenders to sink or swim. They've had a nice long ride on a gravy train fueled by government largesse, and, if they failed to contingency plan for the possibility that someone might turn off the gravy spout, I don't feel particularly bad about that. But the lenders are financial institutions, and, as we've seen, the financial industry is such a horrible tangle that it's hard to anticipate the ultimate repercussions of letting them fail.

But it's also hard to anticipate the repercussions of a bailout - <USER3> doesn't grown on trees, so the funds used to make the bailout need to come from _somewhere_. When it comes to government intervention on this sort of thing, though, I'm kind of inclined to take my mother's advice: "It'll never heal if you don't stop picking at it."

<comment><USER40> Currently the US taxpayer is on the hook for bad loans. My point is, letting people discharge loans does not require a bailout.

So sure we could discharge loans while also bailing out the people who made these loans, but again they are different questions. As you say their are long term issues with the availability and cost of student loans.

I don't have any great answers, but framing things as only two options is greatly simplifying what we can do.

<comment><USER31> > My point is, letting people discharge loans does not require a bailout.

In reality, changing the bankruptcy rules around student loans will have to be paired with a bailout of the people holding the loans. Lobbyists will make sure of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I still find the US attitude to college somewhat perplexing (I'm Australian).

Australia had free university education until around ~1990 or so when it introduced HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme), which I believe later changed to HELP. The idea of this is that any tuition you receive will incur a cost that will be deducted from your salary (above a certain level) until its repaid. It has interest. Previously you could get a discount by repaying early but I'm told that went away.

The key aspects of this system are:

\- You can't student loans for any expenses. This only covers tuition. I think this is a reform that's needed for the US system.

\- It isn't a loan. If you don't earn an income you don't pay anything. There's no getting crippled by loan repayments like seems to happen with US student debt.

\- It's largely impossible for 18 year olds to get into a situation where they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars (I saw a CNN report on millenials once that, as one example, had a young woman who worked as a waitress now who accrued >$100k in debt studying Theatre Arts at NYU).

From working for large US tech companies (in the US) I see a prevailing attitude that some people who work for these companies feel like they're underpaid if they can't save up and pay for private college education for each of their children, which 10-20 years in the future, may well be >$500k _each_ (which is just crazy).

There are actually lots of good options for getting a college education relatively inexpensively:

\- ROTC

\- Resident state college education. This may mean delaying your start a year to establish residency but can pay off big time. UT Austin has an excellent CS program an in-state tuition is quite affordable last time I looked.

\- Stopping when enough is enough. I see a lot of people getting pretty pointless Masters degrees, for example, which is fine if you can afford it.

\- Starting at cheaper (even community) colleges and transferring later. You'll miss out on some of the social aspects of the early years of college but your degree will still say Stanford or whatever.

I wonder if it's not sending the wrong message to your children that they can go to Yale without paying a cent out of pocket. Like what happens when they can't provide that for their own children?

College in the US more than Australia seems to be used as an artificial barrier to entry to a lot of jobs too.

<comment><USER43> > \- Resident state college education. This may mean delaying your start a > year to establish residency but can pay off big time. UT Austin has an > excellent CS program an in-state tuition is quite affordable last time I > looked.

I was curious about this so I looked it up: Full-time students pay roughly ~$5.3-5.6K per semester, or ~$11K a year [1]. Easy to see how one would accumulate ~$50K in debt from just tuition expenses alone.

1: [https://utexas.app.box.com/v/ug- tuition-18-19-long](https://utexas.app.box.com/v/ug-tuition-18-19-long)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The pressure to attend university is immense in certain places.

I never thought of doing anything else, and none of my high school classmates did either. It just wasn't something to contemplate. And that's despite having many contemporaries who didn't attend university.

Luckily, though I went in blind, relying just on what older people had told me about the working world, I ended up studying something interesting that got me a good career. Also quite luckily it cost me barely anything, since I'm European.

For me the worst thing about the student debt story is that I might have been born somewhere with just as much pressure, where studying was expensive, and studied something with no prospect of ever paying back the loan.

And in what sense have people truly decided for themselves? Only in a legal sense. An 18 year old knows nothing about even what it is they are ignorant of. How many 18 year olds are going to know how bankruptcy works? How many 18 year olds are going to tell their parents in a convincing way that they are better off doing a course in plumbing?

The worst thing, though, is the whole education FOMO causes people to not be educated. You just do what you need to pass the exams. If you find out that you just need a certain equation, you just memorize that equation, plug in the numbers during the exam, and forget about how generations of scientists arrived at the equation. If you find out something isn't going to be examined, you will stay ignorant of it. And somehow (let's face it, it's obvious) people know that real life is not going to require you to know things in the way that exams do.

</comment><comment><USER45> There's an issue that nobody seems to discuss here: where you go is at least as important as that you go for higher education.

The numbers for for-profit colleges are rather dismal: higher costs, higher student loan rates, lower graduation rates, lower salaries[1]. And in my personal experience, I've never met anyone with a degree from a for-profit college that was particularly exceptional.

An anecdote: I know someone who recently graduated from a for-profit college on a GI bill. Someone miscalculated how much money he had in benefits there, and when they realized he was out of money, Bam! He graduated. They did have a requirement for an internship deal, apparently supposed to lead to permanent employment, but they placed him with a local company repairing industrial electronics for $10/hr; for someone in his mid-30s with 8 years in the Navy and several years of experience as an insurance claims adjuster.

I am personally a big fan of higher education. It's the one opportunity in anyone's life to learn and experience things you cannot get anywhere else, to meet people who can expand your horizons beyond your specific, small bubble. I'm also not a big fan of "everyone should get a STEM degree, 'cause that's where the money is"; I've met too many people in my career who didn't have the aptitude or interest and it's never led to a particularly pretty result. So, a purely financial viewpoint does not impress me much.

But even from a financial viewpoint, for-profit institutions are spectacularly bad.

[1] [https://capseecenter.org/research/by-the-numbers/for- profit-...](https://capseecenter.org/research/by-the-numbers/for-profit- college-infographic/)

</comment><comment><USER46> If something can't go on, it won't. This crisis will resolve itself when:

* Many colleges go bankrupt

* We are honest with our kids about the learning and signaling consequences of their choices

* Employers loosen their degree filters out of rational self interest

Universities are not _for_ job training. There are much more effective ways to get job training like apprenticeship.

<comment><USER47> I'll make the same comment I make in all these threads: Requiring a college education is the last bastion of socially acceptable racism. If we can break that, then we have a shot at knocking that third item off the list.

<comment><USER48> Is there a term for using racism in a post online like hitler is to godwin ?

Not everything can solve or be attributed to race. We are all the human race and the sooner everyone starts thinking like that the better

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I really feel like the underlying problem is we expect people to be adverse to purchases that will be a net loss. Unfortunately, "shopping" for higher education is extremely confusing and to make matters worse your lender is guaranteed to be paid. So we have created an environment where people who are the most vulnerable are being taken advantage of. We need to find a way to better protect people from making terrible six-figure investments, whether that is through legislation or education something has to change. Even if there was a website that scraped data from LinkedIn to show where people from higher education institutions get hired and what positions they get would massively help consumers not make bad investments. I would have never paid the money for my degree knowing what I know now.

<comment><USER50> _" shopping" for higher education is extremely confusing_

I'm interested in hearing more of your take on this statement.

From my personal experience, as a first generation immigrant (though of Western European background), it wasn't overwhelmingly confusing. Sure, there were lots of options - R1 state schools, Ivies and other top-notch private schools, secondary state schools, etc. But, once I figured out which category of schools best suited my talents (in my case, R1 state school, because I was smart but no clue what I wanted to study), the set of choices was narrowed substantially.

After that, it was really just a matter of looking at the costs, as in my limited experience at the time, all the big state schools were mostly interchangeable, or at least had enough to offer that I didn't fear not finding something to study and hobbies to pursue.

Staying in state, at the time, was something like $16k/year (UVA, mid-90s). Leaving the state was roughly double. Pretty much a no-brainer to go to UVA, VT, or W&M. I ended up at UVA mostly because of ego - at the time, it had the better all-around reputation. Hind-sight being what it is, I might have thrived better at W&M, but I hardly failed to thrive (just wasted my first year partying too hard and not taking academic seriously).

<comment><USER49> It is not the fact of choosing between UVA, Virginia Tech, and William and Mary. Anyone of those schools is highly likely to give you a return on investment even if you get a non-stem degree. Why is this? They all have strong brand recognition. They are very selective; even the least selective of those three (VT) has an average GPA acceptance of 3.92. [1] It gets confusing for people who are not the best and the brightest. if you have a 3.0 GPA and 1000 SAT (median scores for high school) you might think it is a good idea to go to a school like Radford University. [2] Both cost about the same but one will vastly decrease your chances of making a return on investment. Now it might not be a bad idea to attend Radford if you plan on staying in southwest VA and you got a marketable skill. However, there is a large number of people who go to Radford get a history degree and move back to Richmond Virginia. Now your six-figure investment is worth about the same as the paper it is printed on. My parents always told me "It doesn't really matter where you go to school or what degree you get, you just have to make sure you get a degree!". This might have been the case at one point, but it is nowhere near the case anymore.

[1][https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmp...](https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1568) [2][https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmp...](https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1625)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> College became a checkbox item long ago because rich, successful people went to college. Turns out, many of them were rich and successful for other reasons (class, inheritance, old boy's network).

So, now folks are asking "Why isn't college worth the money?" I would respond, it was never "worth the money", as it isn't technical school.

Conflate that with, medicine and engineering are still attainable only through college and its a very confused situation.

</comment><comment><USER52> I wonder how pragmatic and realistic today's parents (and yes, I think it's mainly on the parents) and kids are with respect to college.

My family was lower middle class, I used FAFSA and PELL to pay my way through college. I paid maybe a couple hundred dollars per semester for eligibility. I also rarely bought textbooks and instead would torrent them, all of these steps were taken because I knew my parents could not afford college and had already stretched their wallets to pay for my private high school.

At the end of the day parents need to look at college in a similar way to how we purchase other things. Everyone would like a Tesla but an Accord will do for most. Are you really going to hamstring your kids, and possibly yourself (ParentPlus loans) to send your kids to an out of state, private school w/o scholarships? Universities and the government share equal blame but at some point we need to come to certain realizations about college.

</comment><comment><USER53> All these comments, and not one word about automated HR screenings that drop your resume unless you have an "advanced degree" or from a "top school". It's all fine and good to tell people they don't need something, but let's be honest about what you're doing: preventing those people from being as competitive as you when they apply to the same jobs.

As long as jobs require degrees, people will keep chasing them because at the end of the day it's not about knowledge or ability (as the automated algorithms seems to prove), but about the stamp of degree.

And notice how the post talks about degrees after college? Because that's the reality of the job market right now, you need more than a college degree or else you are shit out of luck.

</comment><comment><USER54> I think this is being caused by many factors:

1\. Schools have failed to utilize technologies which allow quality to be maintained and costs lowered.

2\. students fail to utilize existing programs which help to reduce the need to take traditional existing classroom-based college classes, such as, AP exams or CLEP exams. High schools need to do a better job of telling students about these programs, especially CLEP exams.

3\. Employers have become obsessed with the traditional degrees being the signal of high-quality employee skills as a basis to make hiring decisions or to even give an interview.

<comment><USER55> The average High School Student who can get into a State University usually doesn't have what it takes to take and get credit for an AP exam unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> We think that 18 year olds are too irresponsible to drink alcohol, but they are wise and responsible enough to take out $50K in student loans. If that isn't pure evil, I don't know what is.

Adam Smith said debt is slavery for a reason. Can't imagine a just society saddling so much young people with so much debt at such an early age.

But then again, public utilities are now peddling gambling ads and the US has never been a just nation like we pretended to be.

</comment><comment><USER57> I was only able to afford a few college classed, and instead taught myself various skillsets and backgrounds. It helps that I have a mind for learning things on my own. I consider myself fairly successful, and have a respectable career. However, I do love learning and hope to surround myself with brilliant minds in the near future. I'm not interested in a degree on a single focus, but I do see value in working towards a ph.d or a doctorate.

</comment><comment><USER58> And then the failing empire, now controlled by special interests, started to eat its young.

I would bet a lot of money that if our population was surveyed, over 70% would strongly support dismantling "big business education" and go back to the system we had 30 years ago.

I am in my 60s, and when I think about the entrapment of our youth in student loans with false information and promises, it makes me furious.

</comment><comment><USER59> Every time this comes up, I think about this statistic:

You used to be able to work for minimum wage for a summer and afford college but that is no longer true ([https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gregschoofs/how-much- co...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gregschoofs/how-much-college-did- your-summer-job-pay-for))

</comment><comment><USER60> I managed to work my way through a 4 year program at WGU without any debt. It's been great to be debt free, but the cynic in me wishes I'd have gone to a more prestigious university and taken on debt because I just know that any future political candidates are going to get hammered at the polls if student debt relief or forgiveness isn't one of their main policies.

</comment><comment><USER61> Why don't we stop giving student loans to people who can't pay them back? Let's apply some actuarial analysis to all of the degrees a school offers. Based on the expected and realistic salary and job projections, use that to decide whether or not to give someone a loan. Student debt is a huge problem, but requiring student fiscal responsibility is even worse.

<comment><USER62> Because most of these loans are guaranteed by the fed and no politician is going to run on a "take away student loans" platform.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> But still, it seems that the choice to "suffer to repay student loans, but work in the US" is better than "obtain a free/cheap education abroad and miss your relatives if you can't find a job in the US after it"

edit: "suffer to repay student loans and probably doom your children for even worse circumstances"

</comment><comment><USER64> > the next generation of graduates could default on their loans

I always thought student loans COULDN'T go into default.

If they just don't pay, the taxpayers will make the loss good. And the government's able to come after your income and assets for the rest of your life, regardless of bankruptcy.

Do I not understand how student loans work?

<comment><USER65> They can go into default, they can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

Default just means not being paid in full and on time.

<comment><USER66> > They can go into default, they can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

Yes, they can, there is just a higher bar than other unsecured debt to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> There needs to be disruption in the whole Education System.

It's a shame in this day and age you still have to pay a fortune for accreditation through traditional channels and can't really pursue it through an Online Education at a greatly reduced cost.

I suppose AI will make it all irrelevant in the next 20 years or so anyway.

<comment><USER66> > It's a shame in this day and age you still have to pay a fortune for > accreditation through traditional channels and can't really pursue it > through an Online Education at a greatly reduced cost.

There are, in fact, fully accredited and reduced cost online degree-granting instititutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> What seems to be missed...

1\. We still do not know how to teach B and C students...lectures always are geared and favor A students.

2\. Most ED loans are to B and C students

3\. Fed sponsor loans ALWAYS act to defund state ed programs by over stressing the state public university systems

</comment><comment><USER69> I've been very lucky to get on a federal program to repay my loans for staying in research. Or perhaps I can leave research and earn more money. Ahh well, I still appreciate the 20k they payed off this year.

</comment><comment><USER21> The discussion in most of these comments gets even weirder when you throw BYU into the mix. Top 100 private school with less than $6000 in tuition and fees. Why isn't everyone clamoring to go there?

<comment><USER70> Maybe because of it's tightly coupled religious association??

<comment><USER21> Sure, so then we throw virtually every other school in Utah into the mix. Utah Valley University, University of Utah, Utah State University. Each of these has comparable tuition and fees to BYU without the religious association. Each of these should be very affordable with a part time job and a small pell grant.

It's not just Utah though. If you qualify for in state tuition (just go live somewhere for a year), Florida State is similar in cost. I assume there are many other schools scattered around the country that are similar.

So my question remains, why the hell are people attending schools where tuition and fees are in excess of $40,000 a year? If Dads got that much money then sure, why not. But knowing you'll have to pay it all back? It doesn't make sense when there are many options for affordable schools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> wait you don't need to get that college degree <insert liberal arts degree> to work in barista? Shocker!

Responsible employers should be looking to high out of high school and train them instead of requiring a undergrad degree. This education for the sake of education is a cancer.

</comment><comment><USER72> How will all these colleges survive without getting all these ill-educated students to come to their campuses?

</comment><comment><USER73> Imagine if the Equal Opportunity act was modified to forbid employers from discriminating based on college education credentials. Then imagine how employers and students would act differently. Employers would have to find other ways to determine if employees could do the jobs. Maybe elaborate tests or prior job experience. Most students would probably would stop going to college.

</comment><comment><USER74> I don't know why we keep reading Bloomberg after the Super Micro ordeal. I feel like they burned any credibility they had.

</comment><comment><USER75> College is very inexpensive but you must major in a degree that teaches you strong technical skills or at a school that signals that you are highly intelligent and socially adept. Racking up debt with out of state tuition at some unprestigious state school is a horrific idea. Loans should be priced according to the true risk presented by the loan recipient. Majoring in CS at Stanford should be very low risk, majoring in Sociology at Iowa State should be high risk. Free tuition just provides a job subsidy to professors in unscientific fields of dubious value. Liberal artists are royally screwed unless they graduate from Princeton or a similarly notable school.

Most schools should probably just close.</comment>


Bjarne Stroustrup: Why the Programming Language C Is Obsolete [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPC3O1DVcg

<comment><USER2> He makes some good points, I disagree with his use of the word "obsolete". The definition of obsolete is:

"no longer produced or used; out of date."

In which case C is not obsolete by definition.

He does make a strong case for C being unnecessary, though I think embedded programmers might roll their eyes a bit, but really it is a question for Linus. The best reason for knowing and working in C is that the most ubiquitous and important OS is written and C. Until it is not it's a pretty good reason for knowing and being good at C.</comment>


Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16529878 <comment><USER3> I read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting.

Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for several decades.

<comment><USER4> I think it's a lot easier if you just flip that rule. Don't eat before 1pm or something like that. Basically, skip breakfast. Seems a lot easier, and the fasting interval should be about the same.

Perhaps I'm biased because this is what I naturally do.

<comment><USER5> I've been doing this for a couple years now (only coffee/water before 12pm and no food after 7-8pm). It's a very effective method of calorie restriction for me.

Only eating before 1pm would be absolute torture for me!

<comment><USER6> I just started doing this a few weeks ago, along with counting calories during my "feeding" window (which I actually try to restrict to six hours). So far so good.

I find I'm actually more successful at counting calories on this schedule. I think it's easier for me to completely abstain during the fasting period, and I'm less tempted to snack with lunch and dinner so close together. I've been planning and allocating my calories like I never have before, even though I've tried many carb- and calorie-counting schemes in the past.

I'm also toying around with taking a little MCT oil in the morning to help with cravings and mental focus and give me a little keto boost. It's unclear to me whether or not this defeats the purpose of the fast. Many people seem to think it's fine ("fat fasting") and maybe even a good idea, but I'm not yet convinced one way or the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Slows glaucoma: [https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33950](https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33950)

Effects in long-lived mice: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.06.009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.06.009)

Protective of the aging heart: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.10.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.10.003)

Benefits without calorie reduction: [https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1035720100](https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1035720100)

In nematodes, looking at signaling: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07583](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07583)

And so on. There is a lot more out there on this topic:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=alternate+day+fast...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=alternate+day+fasting)

Researchers still have a very long way to go in order to understand the calorie restriction and intermittent fasting responses completely. In order to do that one pretty much as to have a complete map of cellular biochemistry. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; decades is a very reasonable expectation, I think, based on watching progress in understanding sirtuins over more than a decade, which is just one very thin slice of a very large problem. Practical rejuvenation based on repair of damage after the SENS vision (such as via clearing senescent cells) will be a going concern well before researchers can fully explain calorie restriction in the context of age-related changes and cause and effect in the operation of mammalian biochemistry.

<comment><USER8> > In order to do that one pretty much as to have a complete map of cellular > biochemistry. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen;

A point well worth emphasizing. Probably would help if more people interested in such stuff (whether academics or private enthusiasts) started to recognize the importance of the biochemical side and striving for an ever more complete understanding of it, rather than piling epidemiological and observational long-term "study" upon study.. these are valuable, too, granted, but just like in software development, I suspect there's a lot of castles being built on profoundly muddy/slippery/incomplete foundations

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems flaky:

"Since May 2003 we have experimented with alternate day calorie restriction, one day consuming 20-50% of estimated daily caloric requirement and the next day ad lib eating, and have observed health benefits starting in as little as two weeks, in _insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS inflammatory lesions (Tourette 's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs, atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes_." (Emphasis mine.)

Are they still talking about mice? Or experiments on people?

</comment><comment><USER10> I have long believed, due entirely to anecdotal evidence, that restricting calories and eating less is one of the best ways to add years to your life. It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body. Though obviously necessary, eating is something that we should strive to minimize. Any more than necessary, and the stress induced from digestion, and inflammatory molecules, damages the body and undermines our ability to fight infection.

<comment><USER4> > _It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body._

It seems that eating 3 meals a day, every day, like clockwork, is not the best strategy overall (to say nothing of perpetual snacking in between). I think some signal starts to show above the noise in the data, indicating that our metabolism is optimized for a less regular schedule - or at least a schedule interspersing times of abundance with intervals of constraint.

If that's the case, then we have to simulate and replace the external constraints of Stone Age yore with voluntary restraint.

<comment><USER11> right but "educate people and then they will use their will power" never even remotely works.

imho the next step is to learn how to measure in much greater detail (and on a personal level) where thresholds for immune, organ, hormone, etc responses occur. Then use that to design and customize diets.

Essentially I wanna capacity plan my carb/sugar intake to keep it just about 20% shy of of triggering an insulin response. That's just one potential example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sort of result has been showed repeatedly. We really need more (and better) nutrition education. The level of obesity and overeating in our society is astounding. I'd be surprised if most people could even implement basic calorie counting.

<comment><USER13> Having tried implementing calorie counting... how exactly do you do it?

You either cook everything yourself and weigh every ingredient. Or you buy totally packaged meals (Lite 'n Easy, etc), or you buy fast food (And even then, the calorie counts in fast food are... inaccurate at best).

If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what's in it and there is no accurate way to estimate.

While it's good to be aware just how energy dense foods are (like muffins... aka breakfast cakes) there is no method that I'd consider both achievable for the average person to consistently do AND accurate enough to be considered 'counting' as opposed to washy estimates.

<comment><USER14> > _If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what 's in it > and there is no accurate way to estimate._

uh, why not? i'll do it right now for you off the top of my head, which anyone can do after they look them up for a while.

100g of white bread = ~ 250 calories / 2 tbsp of mayo = ~ 200 calories / 4 oz of deli turkey = ~ 100 calories / 1 tbsp mustard = ~ 10 calories / 2 slices (2 oz.) of cheese = ~ 240 calories / 2 slices of tomato = ~ 20 calories / 1 slice of lettuce = ~ 5 calories / 1 bag of chips = ~ 280 calories (probably on the bag)

there. 1105 calories total. is that perfect? no, but is that useful? yes, a whole lot more useful than "it's too hard, so i might as well not do it."

as an aside: this is why people are fat. a sandwich and a bag of chips is insulin-spiking can easily be over 1k calories, and most people would probably guess it's 300 calories, and 'not fattening', whatever that means.

throw in a soda and you've got a recipe (literally) for disaster.

<comment><USER13> You're literally guessing the quantities of the ingredients of the sandwich. (and mixing measurements... grams AND ounces?)

How is that counting? That's my point.

You're getting a vague idea of what you're eating but it is in no way calorie counting.

<comment><USER14> mixing g and oz - that's a novel and interesting excuse to avoid the work of weight loss. usually people just blame their thyroid but this bullshit excuse at least has some kind of passable scientific pedantry behind it. i'll have to file that one for later.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis)

<comment><USER13> Who said anything about avoiding weight loss?

I've had far more success just keeping a simple food diary and going "wow I eat a lot of cakes" and cutting them out.

I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) and their success comes from the very act of attempting to quantify what they're eating being a defacto food diary.

<comment><USER15> > _I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one > other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!)_

Accurate or inaccurate is only meaningful related to the task and its requirements. 25% can be totally acceptable margin of error for the task. We use even bigger margins in lots of ventures (determining which startup will have a succesful exit to fund, for one).

And yes, the mere act of quantifying helps. But quantifying with even 25% error is still better than just writing down "ate 5 cakes", especially if one doesn't eat too many repeats of the same food.

Not sure in what reasoning one can complain for a method with 25% margin of error (say), but be OK with a method like "5 cakes" which still applies quantification, just in an even more vague and hazy sense.

5 cakes is much worse than 5 carrots, for example, but with merely writing down how many you ate, you have to rely on a far more relative guesstimation of their relative harm than you would be if you were counting their calories and being off by 25%).

<comment><USER13> > Not sure in what reasoning one can complain for a method with 25% margin of > error (say), but be OK with a method like "5 cakes" which still applies > quantification, just in an even more vague and hazy sense.

One method implies rigour and the other one is honest about what it is setting out to do

<comment><USER15> But you seem to be the only one assuming and/or bringing up rigor in this discussion.

Everybody said it's a quick ballpark figure / back of the envelope style calculation.

The mere fact "cake bad, carrots good" everybody knows. It's not much information concerning "Did I ate too much today?". One can have a caloric budget and stay within it (more or less) without having to be perfect in measurements (or sticking to carrot because it's easier to know its light).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A more interesting study if there has ever been one conducted under close clinical supervision is to follow centenarians (100+ years) eating habits.

This is the study that comes close -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone)

</comment><comment><USER17> > The subjects were in a residence for old people, and all were in perfect > health and over 65.

<comment><USER18> If this is true, how would we incorporate this into eating habits for children from birth to death? How much of a public health campaign would be required?

I'm only skeptical because we just barely changed the "11 servings of bread" pyramid...so, who knows.

<comment><USER19> as a father of very young kids I sometimes feel like they are already aware of this. Some days they literally don't want to eat anything (even a food that they described as their favorite the day before), while on other days it's sometimes hard to believe how much can such a small human ingest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just a guess, but if we evolved as hunter-gatherers, meals would likely have been much less predictable, particularly in Northern winters. So perhaps our metabolisms are tuned to an irregular intake and the regular breakfast/lunch/dinner timing just throws it off.

</comment><comment><USER21> In case anyone's interested, I did a 10-week IF experiment that yielded mixed results.[1]

[1][http://telegra.ph/My-experiment-with-IF-03-09](http://telegra.ph/My- experiment-with-IF-03-09)

<comment><USER22> Thanks for sharing.

I've taken up 24 hour fasts once a week, and have seen a ton of benefits. From increased mental clarity, to weight loss, and body overall feels better.

I kicked it off because I'm big into taoism and it supports my practices.

You could try intermittently adding cold showers to support your weight loss. (The benefits of cold showers I've seen are a ton, and I'm not totally sold on that it is consistently good for everyone.)

Or you could attempt ketosis style diets on the days you are fasting. That would be as simple as when you are intermittently fasting, to eat fats only, instead of protein or grains.

Good luck!

<comment><USER21> Thanks! I've tried cold water baths in the past too but not with IF.

I should but from a weight loss maximisation objective, it appears ketosis is the way to go. Planning to start and document that beginning April.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> All of the participants in this study were over the age of 65. I'm curious what the effects of fasting would be for someone younger? I'm 26 and want to do everything I can to improve my lifespan. Most longevity research seems to target older generations.

Do I have to starve myself now or is there an age where the benefits really start to kick in?

<comment><USER24> Intermittent fasting / calorie restriction has a wide range of health benefits, and give your age, there's no reason not to start now.. provided of course that you're getting a proper amount of calories in your diet for your activity level.

Most longevity research targets older people because they are the group that is most interested.. and unfortunately by that time it's mostly too late to do anything significant, so of course the best thing is to start now.

If anything you'll benefit more by starting now, because as you get older your body becomes more difficult to change (for lack of a better phrase)

At any rate, forget the research, focus on yourself.

The most important thing you can do is get regular exercise. Use your body, let your body naturally work it's way to better health. A sedentary lifestyle will kill you quicker than anything else.

Second most important thing (IMHO) is trying to limit the amount of stress in your life. Get out of stressful situations, focus on yourself, meditate, don't let yourself get bothered by things that you can't change or aren't worth your time. This is not only good for yourself mentally, but will help your immune system, lower your body's inflammation levels, etc.

If you do these things you'll be well on your way to living a long healthy life. Then you can add whatever other health recommendations come along your way, olive oil, the occasional glass of red wine, etc.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for this encouraging reply!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm almost 45. Guessing that it's too late for me to adopt this?

Also, If i _had_ adopted it at ~20 years old, would that mean I could have potentially lived up to ~140 years old? That seems an extreme lifespan extension.

<comment><USER26> The subjects were all over 65, if anything you're too young.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Does anyone have experience with this? I can't imagine eating a "similar amount" with one day being healthy, low-calorie foods and the other day being junk food can be good for your health.

<comment><USER28> The idea is to still eat healthy food on both days but one day you just eat less. So one day you might only have dinner and the next day you will have 3 or 4 meals all of which are still made up of healthy foods.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Every about weight loss should mention sleep. Every study should control for it, a mere hour a day can do wonders to your well being

</comment><comment><USER30> > Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance > requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across > a broad range of species.

Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings?

First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.

<comment><USER15> > _First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy?_

Because you don't need to maintain the full adult mass you carry. In the end you'll find a new balance, albeit skinnier. It's not like you'll end to 0 pounds.

In other words, the "normal adult weight maintenance" target weight is not that normal, and not optimally healthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I tend to fast out of laziness and drink coffee, snack on nuts to supplement afternoon drowsiness. Then eat way too much in the evening.

<comment><USER32> Nuts are extremely calorie dense. They're also very healthy, but yeah - <USER2> of calories.

<comment><USER31> Well I can't exactly eat 2000 calories (unless it's a super calorie dense) in a single meal, but there's at least a period of 14 hours in between eating (aside from coffee).

<comment><USER33> Coffee can have up to several hundred calories[0] if drank with sugar, milk, syrups etc., so that doesn't say much.

0\. [https://www.thestreet.com/story/12846402/4/ranked- the-10-hig...](https://www.thestreet.com/story/12846402/4/ranked- the-10-highest-calorie-drinks-at-starbucks.html)

<comment><USER31> Drink mine black, thanks though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> A nutritionist friend of mine has been doing this for years. At least it doesn't have any negative site effects.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is bad news for bodybuilders. How long does poor Arnold have left? I mean pro bodybuilders are eating around 4000 calories just to _maintain_ their weight at about 200lbs. Eating anything less than that and you're getting smaller. Let's not even talk about powerlifters..

<comment><USER36> Arnold is 69 and looks in pretty good shape to me. When you get to that age lack of muscle mass is probably a bigger issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Put simply digestion is one of the most expensive tasks for the body. It makes sense that giving the whole digestive system a break will free up energy in other parts of the body.

</comment><comment><USER38> This paper seems to be from 2006?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, my bad. I have edited the title.</comment></comment>


How to Like People More - <AUTHOR> https://forge.medium.com/how-to-like-people-more-bf99b6cf4c74 <comment><USER2> (Supposedly) Albert Einstein said he didn't believe in free will, and it made people a lot easier to tolerate as a result.</comment>


Ask HN: Why can't I get started? - <AUTHOR> I have these great ideas. I see something on Hacker News like the 7 minute workout, and I think "I should do an app for that, with little diagrams and a timer", and then I do nothing. I just can't get in front of a computer in the evening and code any more. Then I see that someone else did it already, and I get all knotted up inside. That could have been me, had I actually done something.
But even when I know I want to, I can't do it. The knot inside me inarticulately roars at me, and I walk away. I do something else instead. Something which doesn't create anything. I consume. I read. I play games. I read Hacker News on my iPad. I watch TV.
If by some good fortune I manage to sit at the computer, I find that I have achieved nothing. I'll have thought "I'll store the data in a database", and then tried to download and install mysql or mongodb, or postgresql, which I don't really know how to use, and I think "I'll write it in python", or "I'll write it in Cocoa for iOS" which again, I don't really know how to use.
I need to learn some of these things, but all I want is to get something finished, these things hold me up on things that I know should be almost trivially easy. I've been a Windows programmer for nearly 20 years, but I desperately want to be good on the Mac.
I know that if I just sit down for a few hours a day, these things will melt away as I work on them, but I just can't get started.
But I can't start. I wish I could. I organise days when I know I'll have no distractions, and then I squander them on worthless nothings.
Why can't I start? Any ideas? I have none. <comment><USER2> In the past year and a half, I started at least a different dozen projects. None of them is finished, or in a "correct" state. I would start something, to stop it half way through in order to start something else. I would sit on the computer to work, and start gaming a few minutes later. . .

But lately, within 3 weeks, I popped up my first android application on the store; without any prior knowledge on database, webscrapping or anything else I needed to build the app.

The difference? The users. A friend of mine called me saying : Hey, I do that every morning, and the current way of doing it is a pain. I am sure you can do something for me.

And magically enough, I got motivated, working my arse off to get the first version finished. Since it is on the market, I got 60 recurring users and growing. And this keeps me motivated. I put hours on the project, just because I get feedback.

So the conclusion: Do something that someone asked you to. Get your users first, start working afterwards. Don't be alone.

If you don't have users, then join a project that has already started, in order to code with someone and get some interaction.

I think that for a good 90% of us, what keeps up working is the passion for solving problems others have.

Hope this helps :)

<comment><USER3> A bit offtopic, but how did you do the webscraping part?

I'm a bit like the parent, in that I don't commit myself to projects in my "spare time" (ok, after working 10 hours for someone else). I've been meaning to build a website for real estate searches (the current local giant has several usability issues), but I've never gotten to the webscraping part.

I have these 3 in my "to-research" list:

Scrapy

<http://scrapy.org/>

Beautiful Soup

<http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/>

Nokogiri

<http://nokogiri.org/>

did you use any of those?

<comment><USER2> BS is awesome, I used it in a former project. Good thing is that it tries to repair the parsed stuff too. And you'll see that most of what you retrieve will be broken :).

I currently use Jsoup, simply because I am working in java. It gets the job done, I got only good things to say about it.

Concerning the real estate thing, I coulnd't agree more. Being a french guy, I know that all real estate website suck, and it is nearly impossible to have a way to know all houses to sell in the neighborhood. Some kind of location based real estate aggregator with links to real estate websites could be a huge hit IMHO.

Hope this helps

<comment><USER3> Thank you :) . That's exactly what I want to do, a location-based real estate aggregator.

I want to add Airbnb-style sliders, and map-based search.

<comment><USER2> in which country?

<comment><USER3> Uruguay. The main website for real estate here is El Gallito by the local newspaper El País. There's also BuscandoCasas (<http://www.buscandocasa.com/>) , which is pretty decent but doesn't have map-based search.

I'm a bit worried about legal implications, linking and scraping are not well seen here.

<comment><USER2> Ok.

I got only knowledge of the french and dutch market. The website you gave seems to be a good candidate for scrapping (simple layout, really straightforward).

Web scraping is usually not well seen, but hey, if you can help them sell more / more efficiently you can make some friends pretty quickly! AFAIK, what is hugely missing in real estate websites currently is location based search.

Some time ago, I had written some to play around with google maps and say "I want to live within 30 minutes of this place". If you can link that to a real estate listing that could really become awesome!

Let me know if you actually start the project :).

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I probably won't, I have a job opportunity that, if I end up getting it, will take most of my time and focus for the next 2 years :)

Thank you very much for your advice !! I now feel a bit bad if I don't do this :P

<comment><USER2> Congratulations!

Come on. . .You´ll still have all your nights free! :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are tons of mental blocks we can have that prevent us working on our own stuff.

Some people don't have any of these blocks (or at least, none strong enough to stop them). These people are the ones who say "just do it", because for them, the only trick is to stop thinking and roll up their sleeves. But many people can't "just do it".

Some people only have one or two things blocking them. They fix those things, and suddenly they become highly productive. These are the people who will go around saying that they have finally found the magic bullet that solves their productivity problems.

Some people have a ton of mental blocks. Often these are beliefs that work as cross-purposes.

For example, it sounds like you have the belief "if someone else makes something that I had the idea for, that's terrible". This pushes the "knot inside you to inarticulately roar". Trick is it's not that you want to work on something cool, it's that you don't want to _not_ have worked on something cool (subtle, but important difference - negative motivation is very poor at driving creative work).

Another belief is "all I want is to get something finished, these things hold me up on things that I know should be almost trivially easy". This one is familiar to me. This conflicts badly with belief number #1, since one part of your brain is telling you you have to get coding, and another part is flashing warning bells telling you that whatever you are doing can't be worthwhile because it's so hard. Result: paralysis.

The good news is you can debug these different blocking beliefs.

I learned most of this stuff from PJ Eby's site: trouble is he uses an offputting sales-letter/self-helpy language, but the ideas are golden. <http://pjeby.com/> <http://thinkingthingsdone.com/> are your starting points. Email me (email@example.com) if you (or anyone else) wants to talk more; I'm thinking of starting a site which communicates some of these ideas.

</comment><comment><USER5> I feel for you, friend. Some days (weeks? months?) I am in the same boat. First off, you shouldn't get down because of this. Software is complicated. I also invested a substantial portion of my career in Windows development. A younger me looked at Petzold and that that was all there was. How mistaken was I! Then came MFC, COM/DCOM/OLE, .net, ... I stopped paying attention at that point. Think about it ... the tech we use changes every 2-3 years. Some tech ages well. If we had only jumped on Python or ruby when it first came out, we'd have been gurus now? Would we be as broad today?

I'm actually pretty handy with Python. When a younger me would get depressed, I'd code to get happy. These days, Python gives me similar happiness. I love coding that much. Yet, when I had an interview with my dream startup, I froze up (just as you describe it). The dude on the other hand probably thought, this guy knows shit. It sucked for a while .. but then I get over it. Just keep coding, my friend! And stay happy.

</comment><comment><USER6> "I've been a Windows programmer for nearly 20 years, but I desperately want to be good on the Mac" This may be one of reasons. For many people the critical thing about self-motivation is getting some kind of gratification quickly. That's why many big projects are constantly started but never finished. It's their size (and thus delay of gratification) that is discouraging. If I was you I'd start something what will bring you the gratification in a shortest time. Start with technology and problem you know. Get the results asap. Then add a little feature that will require a bit of learning. Just a bit so you'll be still seeing the results quickly. Than make another step and gradually increment the difficulty. You'll both learn and get something done. Also, some usual tips about productivity/time-management (like Pomodoro technique) might be helpful - they're often based on slicing this big-discouraging project into small bits where you get the results quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> For some reason, and despite doing it at work all the time, I never considered doing any of the "splitting it up into little chunks" work at home. I think that subconsciously I think I can hold it all in my head in one go, and just code, but that's obviously not the case any more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know what you mean. I've been there too. I'd have these big ideas in my head, but never executed on them for reasons unknown. Or I'd write some ideas down, only to procastinate on them later on.

My solution had everything to do with the proverd 'The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'. The thing with big ideas (or wanting to learn new stuff, FTM) is that it's kinda hard to grasp where to start. Once you break it down in simple, little steps, your big idea and the way to finish it will become much more actionable.

Write down your idea, break it down in smaller chunks. The first thing after that is to know what you don't know. Educate yourself on those, for instance with codecademy for everything related to web programming. Once you've mastered that, it's much easier to see what you have to do.

For your procastination issue, I recommend a time management system like the pomodoro technique.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that writing down the idea and breaking it down it the way forward, so thanks for your help. I appreciate it. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had the same problems. Until I was kinda forced to do a lot of work in my free time. Well I had to decide, walk away and let three other people down or just do it. That was the start of a couple of month where I worked every sunday for 8 hours on the project. For other people this is maybe easy, for me it was huge.

And the best part was it affected everything else. I started just getting things done I wanted to accomplish.

I did also some reading about willpower, how it works in our brain and how we can train it. It's a really fascinating topic and helped me alot.

<comment><USER9> Can you share the stuff that read our willpower? It will be really helpful. Thanks in advance.

<comment><USER10> I would suggest the book "The Willpower Instinct" by Kelly Mcgonigal: <http://www.amzn.com/dp/1583334386>.

You can also look a great talk she did at Google: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5BXuZL1HAg>

In brief: sleep, exercice, healthy food and meditation will boost your willpower.

Edit: fixed Youtube link.

<comment><USER11> After reading the post I right away thought about the book "The Willpower Instinct", great book and highly recommended!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sounds like me most of the time...

I think half the battle is just forcing yourself into getting things done. Usually once you're into a task it's harder to stop than it was to initially get started.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. It _is_ harder to stop, providing no hiccups occur. Once a hiccup happens, I have to force myself to start again (with the resultant battle by no means certain).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would hardly call seeing something on HN and wanting to make an app out of it a "great idea". I would call that, I don't know, not your idea at all. Windows still has 80% of the market-share on desktop, and soon droid will over take the iphone market. I think your thinking is backwards on a great many things. How about you find something you are passionate about, using technology you are already good at, and then try to "start".

</comment><comment><USER14> I know exactly what you're talking about.

What helped me immensely: Take a finite, tiny step. Let's say you noticed a really small bug or even just a typo in your current project. Say to yourself, "Okay, I'm going to fire up my IDE, find the misspelled word, fix it, and commit the change. This will only take two minutes, then I can go back to surfing HN". If you haven't even started yet with your project, just say, okay, let's set up the project structure. Or even just install the IDE or whatever. Find the step that appears to be the least intimidating, and just do it.

More often than not, I then feel, okay, I got the project open, might as well tackle this other problem that I have. Take the next step, whatever is within reach. Suddenly hours have passed and I've made substantial progress.

After you do this a couple of times, it will get easier and easier to get started.

</comment><comment><USER15> Probably because you're making it a joyless enterprise. You have high expectations, and you're making it a test of your worthiness as a person. So even starting to work on it reminds you of many personal regrets. You also have the problem that you're a very experienced Windows developer, so being a dummy again with a new topic is painful.

Your body doesn't like feeling that way so it says "nope".

I struggle with this problem too; I'm in a similar situation. But I think I broke my programmer's block by allowing myself to just do silly little projects. No big plans or expectations. Like, set yourself the task of rewriting a small program you did before. Or something small and personally valuable, even if it just gives you the scores of your favorite team or something. Think very small, low stakes.

</comment><comment><USER16> Many times I have realized that if you are not able to get something or get something done, its because you are focusing on it too much. And in such cases, I try to go for the tangential focus approach. What I mean by that is that instead of trying to build what exactly you want to build or instead of trying to learn what exactly you are trying to learn, do something else which is tangentially related (kind of difficult to explain this though but you will get it if you get it).

</comment><comment><USER17> I can very well empathize with you. I still don't have anything to "show", but am slowly making progress. Baby steps. I started with little bit of javascript and went onto node.js and then setup mongodb. The setup HTML5 + mongodb + node.js is a fertile playground to get few projects complete.

</comment><comment><USER18> Start with finishing one very small project. Then buikd a bigger one. And so on.

</comment><comment><USER19> What do you actually DO with your time?</comment>