Connect with us

Business

‘Quite irresponsible’: What to know about the ‘student debt strike’ on August 9, 2023 at 9:09 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

on

While many borrowers are preparing to make payments on their student loans when they restart in October, others are ignoring their accounts and going on what has been labeled a “student debt strike.”

A movement led by the student loan group Debt Collective, the “strike” is not as clear cut as it seems.

In contrast with the name, most borrowers will not undergo any financial harm when on “strike” nor do their demands indicate they want to go back to paying on student loans by striking a deal with the Education Department.

Instead, the movement, which has been around since 2015, is typically made up of borrowers who already have $0 monthly payments through an income-driven repayment plan or have already deferred on their loans. Since they are not paying anything to the government, the group has labeled these actions a “strike.”

Advertisement

And President Biden’s “on-ramp” repayment plan that allows borrowers to skip payments for a year without financial harm is the perfect venue for the group to try to grow their movement of borrowers who say they are “striking” against loans when they don’t make any payments.

Here is what to know about the student debt strike:

When did the movement begin?

The idea of a student debt strike started for Debt Collective began back in 2015. 

It began with 15 people who went to Corinthian College, a school that was found to have defrauded its students.

Advertisement

“We were the ones who sort of found this clause in the Higher Education Act about borrower defense. That you know, then was just like a really obscure line that said you can have your debts canceled if you were defrauded,” Braxton Brewington, press secretary for Debt Collective, said. “And so we created our own form, and the 15 people who were going on debt strike filled it out and demanded debt cancellation.”

Brewington said the form then spread and thousands of people signed it to demand student debt cancellation. Last year, Vice President Kamala Harris announced all Corinthian borrowers would receive debt relief since they were defrauded by their school.

Since then, Debt Collective has called for numerous debt strikes, including every time the Biden administration said student loans would get turned back on. 

Critics have said that the way the movement is structured is being incorrectly labeled as a strike.

Advertisement

“I think strike is just the wrong word. You know, a strike is when you demand something or your demands are met then you return to work. The demand is a cancellation. It’s not a strike,” Alan Collinge, founder of Student Loan Justice, said. 

Who has participated in this movement?

For the most part, those who have participated in a debt strike have done so in a way that has not financially harmed them. 

“It has been a combination of people who both at a financial place where they really can’t pay on their student loans and so they politicize their refusal to pay by going on strike in coordination with demanding student debt relief,” Brewington said. 

Some borrowers went on strike after they worked out through their income-driven repayment plan that they would be paying $0 a month. Some were already in deferment and not paying on their loans so they characterized it as a strike. 

Advertisement

“The last thing we want is for people to financially harm themselves. We were not encouraging people to, we’ve never encouraged them to default on student loans,” Brewington said. “And I think that’s maybe sometimes when people think.”

“It’s using the tools available to us to some creative and some less creative to find a way to keep money in your pocket to go towards your necessities, rather than going to the Department of Education,” he added. 

Biden’s plan makes the debt strike easier

While the movement caught the attention of some borrowers in the past, Biden’s “on-ramp” repayment plan has made the pitch easier for individuals to join the cause. 

Although payments are restarting in October, borrowers will not see financial consequences, aside from accruing interest, if they don’t pay on their loans until Oct. 2024. 

Advertisement

“It’s actually never been easier to go on a student debt strike,” Brewington said.

“In many ways, it’s just literally refusing to pay for a lot of people that will probably be at least for a year. And then I think you can sort of bet on something happening because, you know, the alternative is the Biden administration going back to those sort of harsh consequences a month before the presidential election, which seems unlikely,” he added.

The end goal of the student debt strike is not to negotiate with the department but so that borrowers will never have to pay student loan debt again.

A small movement with criticisms

There are more than 45 million student loan borrowers in the U.S., with many never having heard of this type of strike or are uninterested in it. 

Advertisement

However, Brewington says they’ve seen a couple of thousand people in the past sign up and that their end goal was not to get all borrowers on board. 

“We don’t need 45 million people participating in the debt strike for it to be effective or to make a political statement,” Brewington said

However, other student loan advocates believe the call is ignoring the larger issues and plays into the hands of debt collectors. 

“There’s kind of a semantic difference. But the other key difference here is it’s quite irresponsible to call for people who can pay to stop paying their loans. Because in the absence of bankruptcy protections, that only plays into the student debt collection industry’s hands,” Collinge added.

Advertisement

​Education, Business, News, student debt strike While many borrowers are preparing to make payments on their student loans when they restart in October, others are ignoring their accounts and going on what has been labeled a “student debt strike.” A movement led by the student loan group Debt Collective, the “strike” is not as clear cut as it seems. In contrast…  

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

on

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

  • Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
  • Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
  • Metals: Up 43%.
  • Leather products: Up 39%.
  • Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
  • Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
  • Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

  • GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
  • Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

on

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

  • Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
  • No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
  • Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
  • Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

  • Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
  • Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
  • Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

  • Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
    • Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
    • Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
    • Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
  • Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
  • Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

  • Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
  • U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
  • Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Continue Reading

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

on

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

Credit: Heute.at

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

  • Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
  • Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
  • Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Credit: Heute.at

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

  • The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
  • The decline of Instagram and Twitter
  • Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Advertisement

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Credit: Heute.at

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.

Continue Reading

Trending