<p>Microsoft is especially good if you don't mind living abroad.
The tough part I imagine though is the situation that engineers my age face, when they have to train subcontractors who will be taking over their teams projects but thousands of miles away.
Microsoft</a> profile for young professionals: BusinessWeek</p>
<p>"Fraud is fraud, and the institutions who perpetuate it should be subject to legal action. Ignorant people who read marketing material with fancy graphics and nice photos and think, "hey, these people care about my education" need to accept their responsibility for having signed on for loans they couldn't afford to pay back. It is really irresponsible to claim foul once you're 125K in the hole." </p>
<p>Perhaps Blossom, but if "Fraud is fraud, and the institutions who perpetuate it should be subject to legal action" why is there so rarely any effective action taken against those who have perpetuated this fraud on a massive and heretofore unknown scale. The large players in the SL industry have over billed the government for billions, and by questionable fee enhancements have bilked students and families for potentially more billions. Unless of course the implication is that the moral condition of fraud is only to be applied to borrowers who do get into trouble. And the problem with that contention is that they, unlike borrowers in virtually all other sectors of the credit arena, have had basic consumer protections denied by special interest lobbying and attendant governmental fiat. So all too often their economic troubles are a result of a unusual and unprecedented situation vis a vie consumer rights and protections. </p>
<p>And unlike other arenas of the credit industry the SL contingent actually benefits from not trying to work with borrowers in trouble. They do not have to make what would be common concessions in other business arenas because of special treatment they receive from the government. And because of these special condition they actually make more money by driving student loans into default collecting the surety money from Uncle Bingo, obscene fee enhancements from the student and grossly inflated collection costs only made possible by sweet heart regulations. So by any reasonable terms this paradigm is not a business transaction in any reputable sense...insofar as what is delivered is scarcely commiserate with the actual cost to the service provided. Even very effective (and sometime very aggressive) business people such as Henry Ford or Bill Gates realized that there is a point wherein profit has to be balanced out to what its doing to the social fabric or the basic resources of their consumer base. And they moderated their conduct accordingly. This moderation has been lacking in the student loan industry...they have generally behaved like Gould and Fisk on a government transfusion....</p>
<p>As far as ignorant people who fall for shiny marketing, is the implication there that it is permissible to market deceptively? If that is the case, and since we are talking about the young adults in our society...would it not be just as acceptable to market Heroin to them as the relaxant needed to cut the stress of the student loan situation? </p>
<p>The problem with using responsibility as a caveat is that is not exclusively a condition applicable to only one side. Yes student borrowers need to act responsibly but to allow the lenders to behave with moral abrogation is scarcely appropriate. And perhaps even more destructive socially. What the current debacle in student loans and it's supporting industry have done is brought an entire section of the economy to the brink, and has undermined both the financial and moral stability of American higher education. Now the companies involved have made unprecedented billions in this system, but any ethical business also considers its effect on its clientele and the country wherein it operates. Obviously these companies have no real consideration of these factors. And having expended the resources of their clientele, expended billions in government money, and squandered the billions they have made in profit...they now want billions more in bailout money. Somehow it seems that the corporate culture in this case is, at best, morally bankrupt on a scale well beyond the occasional lost student who gets in too deep. </p>
<p>Colleges too bear a moral and ethical stain in this matter insofar as they have allowed educational costs to balloon and did nothing effective to remedy the situation.
For those of use who are faculty, the situation is fast becoming a ethical swamp. We have dedicated our professional lives to teaching and service but the system in which we are engaged has become so costly that it is in itself becoming socially destructive. At there will be a point where many of us have to tell students (and possibly your own children) not to attend college...</p>
<p>My friend is headed for a job in a core competency at Microsoft in the US so I don't expect outsourcing. He's from India anyways and travels there from time to time and he's considered moving back before.</p>
<p>Interesting that such a high proportion of this discourse is about out of country employment. Your friends coming to the US, and many in the US seem to be contemplating doing the opposite.
Between a difficult economy and the problems with graduate debt considering leaving the US seems to be developing into a more common career route. Many of my associates have not yet come back into the US, and I'd wonder if not returning may have been a better choice. </p>
<p>Perhaps good for those emigrating, but it could bode poorly for the overall economic future of this country.</p>
<p>BCEagle91, Washer & Dryer are Kenmore. Have had 2 service calls on washer in 26 years plus H & I replaced a $60 part recently + 1 set of new hoses. Just had the first call ever for the dryer to replace heating element. Have a 25 yr. old fridge from our first house that still works fine. Also have a 20+ year old microwave that we keep going back to after having gone through two newer ones. </p>
<p>Have not had that much luck with TVs, garage door openers, water heaters, and a couple of other items, although I am still using daily a Dell laptop purchased in June 2004.</p>
<p>wow, that sucks. you can get a house for that much money. some people probably do this for the "college experience", but it might just be cheaper to go out of state and get a job without owing debt.</p>
<p>we usually get stuff from Sears also- although our fridge is from Costco.
However, even though we always try and buy not the cheapest but certainly not ones with automatic features like ice makers- I still think that " they don't make them like they used to".
My H has a 1/2 Ford pickup- from 1964- but his Ford from 1992 requires more work.</p>
<p>Im also still on starter house/husband.
;)
Worry about Ds ever able to afford buying a house though.</p>
<p>Interesting how this discussion has an under current of how limited people have now become regarding consumer purchases and etc. </p>
<p>Might be worth the time to go to UCD's You Tube channel and listen to Dr. Elizabeth Warren's lectures about the troubles afflicting the American middle classes.</p>
<p>Actually I have a lot of sympathy for the guy with a 150K loan. He got a set of parents who COULD help financially and instead preferred to co-sign him into a crazy debt. His mom can only offer him a room and needs to win a lottery to help him with debt? Come on. If he didn't qualify for considerable financial aid (and this seems to be the case), his parents' income is around 200K. And they couldn't spare the initially promised 7K a year between the two of them? And simultaneously encouraged the loans by co-signing? Jerks, frankly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and please tell me what kind of washer and dryer lasts for 26 years- our first one was a handme down from inlaws & we had to replace it about 7 years ago- the dryer still works, but the washer is a waste of water and energy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I work for an appliance repair shop - for the most part, our technicians think Whirlpool is the best.</p>
<p>I'm wondering if the idea of going into some debt for college depends in part on the major & intended career of the student?</p>
<p>There's a girl in son's HS who got offers from several ivies, but took Johns Hopkins because they gave her more $$ & she wanted to go on to med school. For those whose career depends on an advanced degree (future lawyers, doctors, vets, psychologists, etc.) it seems prudent to not get into staggering debt for undergrad since you'll be definitely staring down grad school loans (plus several years of deferred, full-time income).</p>
<p>However, for the kid who plans to get a 4 year degree and also has a fairly high earning potential predicted at graduation from the 4 year school with that major (based on facts from various colleges' career centers--not just on hopes/dreams) wouldn't it be in his/her interest to take out some debt for the good, four-year school? Especially if the better schools have a better record of job placement/networking/high-level internships/national recognition in the field?</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>But most kids end up changing majors/career goals....</p>
<p>I guess that's true, generally (I don't know the statistics). But, you have to operate on certain assumptions to make any decisions about college, don't you? E.g., if your daughter wants to be a writer (now) you look for schools that have good writing programs. If your son wants to be an engineer (now) than you look for schools with strong engineering departments.</p>
<p>So if your child had a major in which he would benefit, career-wise, from a nationally-recognized school with a lot of co-op/internship connections all over the country/world, and it were more money than a local school that most people hadn't heard about outside the immediate area---it would be in his long-term interest to attend the school better for his major, despite extra costs, correct?</p>
<p>I realize this is a somewhat extreme comparison (the choice is ordinarily not solely between huge debt/nationally known vs affordable/unknown). However, I just think there are other factors at play for certain students than a broad-brush assessment that all those who take out a lot of debt are simply wrong and not thinking through the situation.</p>
<p>cry cry cry, grow up. Nobody forced anybody to go to college.</p>
<p>Cry, Cry, Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs....</p>
<p>Perhaps no one forces people to go to college. But for success in our society some college education is needed. </p>
<p>If there is to be any 'force' considered in this matter perhaps it would be the situation wherein students and families are forced to mortgage their futures to corporate lenders.
And these same companies only have that privileged ability because of behind the scenes lobbying, massive strategic donations to select committee members, and placement of their shills into governmental regulatory agencies which are supposed to be neutral policy makers for educational funding decisions. And on top of it all these same companies, despite their own unprecedented profits have managed to bring the American higher education system to the brink of disaster.</p>
<p>So yes there was some force here...a force which co-opted what had been a equitable educational funding system which benefited the common good into a socially and economically disasterous form of macro-parasitism which only profited a very small group of privileged financiers. Perhaps there is a single phrase which would define what they have achieved... the financial rape of an entire generation of our most ambitious, creative and driven people because these same citizens dared to try to better their condition and that of our society.</p>
<p>No one's crying, Dr. Horse; just saying that going into debt for college might not be a completely unreasonable decision for certain students in certain majors.</p>
<p>"No one's crying, Dr. Horse; just saying that going into debt for college might not be a completely unreasonable decision for certain students who are in certain majors." </p>
<p>And JS that's one of the arenas wherein the last generations educational funding model is already detrimental and will become more destructive. In such fields as public school teaching (and increasingly collegiate teaching), nursing and such as fire and EMT the debts incurred for education have been disproportionate compared to future incomes. For many of us in academe (especially the gateway schools) it is coming close to the ethical brink. What we may have to do is outright tell students not to pursue their education beyond a limited point because the debt loads will ensure economic marginalization. </p>
<p>In teaching it's already reached that brink, insofar as many are electing to opt out because the pay will never counteract the debts. A condition which is not stabilized by constant demands to enhance the length of teacher training degrees. The same problems are also beginning to affect nursing and other fields. Now the argument could be that people should not pursue these fields, but that contention belies three conditions. First not everyone has the resources to pursue high status fields. And the implication there is to drive an entire economic class from certain lower echelon professions which is little more than a obtuse form of postmodern feudalism. Second we do actually need such people as school teachers and nurses. Third even the AMA has begged the USDOE to release the pressure exerted upon their members by the edudebt cabal. Therefore even the very privileged such as MD's are now being adversely affected by this debacle. </p>
<p>So Dr. Horse there is a greater problem here than can be simply dismissed by telling people to quit crying. What's happened is that the co-opting of our educational system by profiteers has already begun undermining trades essential to our economy and our societies very stability. Of course unless the idea is that excessive profits for a very small cabal are more important than any greater needs which serve the common good?</p>
<p>Interesting and subtle analysis, Atana. I heard a saying a while back---it used to be that wealthy families handed down property from generation to generation, thus solidifying their family's hold on control/wealth. Today---education is the family inheritance.</p>
<p>"I heard a saying a while back---it used to be that wealthy families handed down property from generation to generation, thus solidifying their family's hold on control/wealth. Today---education is the family inheritance" </p>
<p>Astute observation Jolynne Smyth, and it could be considered a conceptual downside to the development of the 'information age' framework. Education could very well again become a status marker of a very limited class because of costs and debt problems attendant to our current educational funding system. </p>
<p>Those of the lower orders who need this education to elevate or even maintain their current status are compelled to borrow often at unfavorable or outright predatory terms. That condition is one which Dr. Warren indicated has already happened in her lectures about the decline of the American middle class. Of course those who already have elite status would be somewhat less affected inherently because of that same status. So they as J.S. noted will be able to continue educating their scions, and it may develop as a marker and sole privilege of their class. </p>
<p>Granted the corporations who took over America's means of funding education benefit from the current situation. Except of course they have exceeded the ability of the classes subjected to their debt manipulation to pay. What then will they do? Insofar as there may not be another generation desperate (or stupid) enough to attain an education under the terms that the lenders cabal have effectively dictated to American higher education. </p>
<p>The whole situation is something that Burke long ago alluded to in the "Axe Makers Gift" referring to the development of internet technologies and learning. He said the new technologies could mean universal learning or technological feudalism. But what he never could have accounted for in the era he was writing that essay, was how the systems for learning became reliant then controlled by interests which caused learning and debt to be interlinked. So the digital classroom advocated by Burke, and the chalk and lectern classroom are trapped within the same swamp. That mire being the costs, debt, and the practical value of that learning cannot be reconciled. </p>
<p>Perhaps that's another toll paid by our societies permitting the profiteers into the ivy halls. The old learning is beginning to die of their excesses and the new learning has already become infected.</p>
<p>Atana, millions of people are paying off their ed loans as we speak- some with ease, some with difficulty, and some with minor sacrifice. You don't seem to have any solution to the problem except to demonize the lenders, infantalize the borrowers, and criticize the universities who take the money.</p>
<p>Of the millions who are successfully paying off their loans, some are nurses and teachers and social workers who would have made it through college eventually... but the existence of the loan industry allowed them to borrow instead of working their way through, and now that they are settled into their professions they are paying it back. Seems to me that's the way the system is supposed to work. The pharmacist at my local chain drug store took 6 years for a BA (two in Community college, the rest at State U, commuting from home and working a minimum wage job) and many more years after that to get his pharmacy credentials. He regrets not having taken out loans- he makes good money now, still lives pretty modestly, and could have paid them off easily but would have been in the work force earning a good salary that many years earlier if he'd been willing to take out loans.</p>
<p>Hindsight is 20-20.... but for every disaster story you tell about the rapacious lenders, there are dozens of happy, educated, and successful citizens out there grateful for their loans. I am one of them. I could have worked my way through grad school and taken god knows how many years to get my degree-- but I didn't, and it worked out fine.</p>
<p>There are kids as we speak who have opted out of the loan industry and are doing ROTC, financing med school with government loans which require working in an underserved area after completing their MD. There are also kids who have no business being in college- they are poorly prepared, not motivated, not interested in higher education, but will have heft loans once they graduate with a degree of questionable utility either as a means of improving their intellectual capital, or helping them with gainful employment. That's sad... but don't prevent the motivated and ambitious from getting ed loans by shutting down the system because of the abuses.</p>