This guy just moved to a jungle to escape his student loan debt?

[amarowsky]

Absolutely. There are many fan-run Disney podcasts that are just one guy or girl sharing their love of Disney, reporting from the parks and resorts, talking about the latest news and more. Costs are probably minimal. But then there are the others that are produced by a professional team. I love Choiceology, which is put out by Schwab, for example. I'm sure the host and other team members are paid for their work. And although the podcast is sponsored by Schwab, there is barely any advertising. They only even mention Schwab a couple of times, once at the beginning and once at the end. I find the entire content of the shows to be entirely absent of advertising or bias.

Sounds like they're doing their advertising tastefully! Could a sign that they're not gluttons with their revenue from their podcast.

The only thing that makes me worried on some of the higher budget stuff..... Is when you have enough "add dollars" supporting the show, it can effect the product quality. Because they'll have 1st beholden responsibility to those paying their bills. And if they're really concerned with keeping that income source happy, they may have to "watch what they say" or choose to avoid certain questions, topics, blah blah blah.

A really good example is China & NBA. China pays NBA's bills, so they're not allowed to say anything that is in conflict w/ China, on public media. Like the whole human rights abuses alleged against their Gov't too the Uighur's -or- that NBA is not allowed to acknowledge Taiwan's existence or mention anything regarding Tibet, for fear of China demonetization of the NBA. Also similar to Raytheon and Boeing board members going onto CNN news. They are not allowed to promote anything that goes against the "ever increasing defense budget". I'd imagine the same reason that something like 69% of people (who knows how accurate that is) of both sides of the aisle, support Medicare for all. But CNN has a lot of insurance companies advertise on there, and help fund their organization. I recall reading an article about CNN not allowing some commericals to air, that appeared to be "anti insurance" , they used weak rationale saying it singled out an executive at one company.

My point is, advertising may seem benign. But it has impacts, because it is finally driven. It would seem wise, for everyone to question their source if the level of advertising really seems to be high. <---- this is more exclusive to information providing sources. As long as you're just getting entertainment, then it doesn't really matter. But for entertainment shows that capture the minds of our elderly, that are heavily advertised, I get worried... Fox and CNN, I know legally, they've had to defend themselves as entertainment shows in court. Because they're soo entrenched in propaganda and opinion, that it legally can't be defined as news (kinda like the subway bread , is bread here, but is a confection in Eu, because it's soo molested away from bread). Unfortunately, folks with stronger dissonance, fall prey to those entertainment news shows, and believe their bull**** interpretations as gospel. While they're not allowed to see, valid, reasonable, thoughtful counter arguments if they are obtuse to the advertisers preferred message. (for news my main gripe is, 100% Pro War and Pro insurance on both sides. I think these ideas at least need to be strongly questioned and re-examined by all, as they appear to be running orders of magnitude, below optimal).

Forgiving advertising influence at the low end, is a gateway drug to accepting it at the Highest level. This is where I approach much advertising based content, w/ trepidation and skepticism.

[disneysteve]

Polished does not equal expensive, expensive does not equal quality, but more resources will likely lead to a more superior product. But IMO, the best product out there, happens to be Very affordable to operate. (possibly within my budget)

Absolutely. There are many fan-run Disney podcasts that are just one guy or girl sharing their love of Disney, reporting from the parks and resorts, talking about the latest news and more. Costs are probably minimal. But then there are the others that are produced by a professional team. I love Choiceology, which is put out by Schwab, for example. I'm sure the host and other team members are paid for their work. And although the podcast is sponsored by Schwab, there is barely any advertising. They only even mention Schwab a couple of times, once at the beginning and once at the end. I find the entire content of the shows to be entirely absent of advertising or bias.

[amarowsky]

It depends what sort of show you're talking about. If it's just some guy in his basement talking about sports for fun, you can probably run that on your phone. The sound quality might not be great but it'll do the job. But if you're talking about a more polished show, maybe with video and good quality production, you need higher end equipment. And if it's anything beyond just a little hobby, you need to be able to pay your employees. At the very least, you need money to cover expenses. Maybe you're doing dining reviews, so you need to pay for meals. Or you are talking about video games so you need to buy those. It's not just the cost of broadcasting itself.

In the case of the Disney podcast I follow, they have numerous paid staff members. They all need annual passes to the parks so they can come and go freely. They need to eat at the restaurants. They need to attend special events. They can't report on and review things without any money to do them. They report on the cruises, the private tours, and more. All of that costs many thousands of dollars each year. That money has to come from somewhere. Sure, there are plenty of very casual Disney podcasts run by fans, but they don't have anywhere near the depth of content that the professional ones have.

It really does depend on the show. But I would be careful not to mistake a big budget $$$ = High quality content. I'll have to use Joe Rogan Experience as the outlier, but best example of low budget resulting in high quality. 95%+ of the show is done by (2) people, the host and the engineer. This is all the way from uploading content, setting up cameras & audio, coordinating guests, and everything else. Essentially "farm to table" with (2) people. And on average, they reach 200 million listeners a month, in some cases for extended 3 hour blocks of attention. (FYI, most people I know listen at 1.3-2x multiplier speed, so that + silence removal, is probably closer to 1.3-2 hours listened on avg) and of the 200 million downloads is roughly over ~20 per month, or 5 million Downloads per episode. That's' insane how much reach that is.... As who knows how many listeners per download (anywhere from 0.1 - lets say 4 people). It's nuts to think he has more reach than any 1 super bowl (downloads to viewer ratio) every month. To be more accurate, it's closer to 1.5 record setting superbowls for every pedestrian month of rogan. HIs largest podcast sole episode being the Elon Musk one, w/ 33 million downloads.

I heard a unique metric, to help realize how much influence this is. I heard, back in the 90's, that if you were a comedian, who get to do a spot on "Letterman" or "Jay Leno" with your comedy act. It would be the equivalent audience, to them selling out every seat in the comedy-nightclub (Think it was like a 100-300 club), every day of the week, for 40 years..... (thats millions of eyes). Crazy to conceptualize and contemplate how many people are "millions".

More produced podcasts, like your Disney mentioned one, Radiolab, Dan Carlin Hardcore History, Freakenomics these are much larger teams that do require a lot of investigative journalism. Each one of them cost magnitudes more than J.R.E. podcast I imagine, as they have staff >2 people. But if you put all of those podcasts together, they capture a substantially audience. I could say the same for many podcasters who operate more solo, or with a very small team (1-3 assistants/researchers). As soon as you are employing anyone else, it's gonna cost a ton. But I would not discount, an authentic person, who's honest, informed, and has some message or entertainment to share.

Polished does not equal expensive, expensive does not equal quality, but more resources will likely lead to a more superior product. But IMO, the best product out there, happens to be Very affordable to operate. (possibly within my budget)

[disneysteve]

I'm curious, what are the expenses you're referring to that are high?

It depends what sort of show you're talking about. If it's just some guy in his basement talking about sports for fun, you can probably run that on your phone. The sound quality might not be great but it'll do the job. But if you're talking about a more polished show, maybe with video and good quality production, you need higher end equipment. And if it's anything beyond just a little hobby, you need to be able to pay your employees. At the very least, you need money to cover expenses. Maybe you're doing dining reviews, so you need to pay for meals. Or you are talking about video games so you need to buy those. It's not just the cost of broadcasting itself.

In the case of the Disney podcast I follow, they have numerous paid staff members. They all need annual passes to the parks so they can come and go freely. They need to eat at the restaurants. They need to attend special events. They can't report on and review things without any money to do them. They report on the cruises, the private tours, and more. All of that costs many thousands of dollars each year. That money has to come from somewhere. Sure, there are plenty of very casual Disney podcasts run by fans, but they don't have anywhere near the depth of content that the professional ones have.

[amarowsky]

It really matters how it is handled. Ads are necessary. No way around that. Even running a basic podcast can be fairly expensive. The one Disney podcast I have followed for over a decade is produced by two guys who own a travel agency, so the agency sponsors the show. They have a select few other sponsors that are very much hand-picked and represent products or services that the team uses and believes in strongly. They won't just take on any advertiser simply for the money. So even though I find some of the ads annoying because I'm not the least bit interested in what they're selling, I know that they were chosen as advertisers with a great deal of integrity.

Agree, it is variable (my tolerance) to how the entity handles the adds. (i also prefer more chosen advertising, that is screened by the content creator's team/self). Seems like we are in agreement for typical adds. But maybe you are not as "turned off" by disruptive add's as I am. (maybe I'm on an island.... I just think we have more advertising that I'd personally prefer to tolerate).

I'm curious, what are the expenses you're referring to that are high?

(asking because I have not aware of common "fairly expensive" costs).

Only way I was aware of "high costs" = If you have very high downloads, and the hosting fee increases. But a lot of places offer $5-20 per month for unlimited downloads + couple of microphones $50-$500 (variable) + computer (likely have one capable) + editing (anywhere from free - >$30 per 2 hours for audio engineer) . I mean they can be as high as you wish if your flying guests out or vice versa, but the floor costs are quite low to my knowledge. But I have little experience hosting, I merely am going off my friends info who's a podcaster + audio engineer + video editor. I have recorded plenty of podcasts, but had other people upload the media to the host.

[disneysteve]

I know one supposedly cannot default on student loans. However, what if one took out a bunch of cash advances on credit cards, used the cash advance to pay off the student loans and then defaulted on the credit cards?

Sure. You can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy but you can certainly discharge credit card debt.

[disneysteve]

Does anyone else have this feeling? I don't mind some... I get sometimes adds are necessary for income. But Too many.... just makes it feel like a really really fake message.

It really matters how it is handled. Ads are necessary. No way around that. Even running a basic podcast can be fairly expensive. The one Disney podcast I have followed for over a decade is produced by two guys who own a travel agency, so the agency sponsors the show. They have a select few other sponsors that are very much hand-picked and represent products or services that the team uses and believes in strongly. They won't just take on any advertiser simply for the money. So even though I find some of the ads annoying because I'm not the least bit interested in what they're selling, I know that they were chosen as advertisers with a great deal of integrity.

[Snicks]

I know one supposedly cannot default on student loans. However, what if one took out a bunch of cash advances on credit cards, used the cash advance to pay off the student loans and then defaulted on the credit cards?

[amarowsky]

Really? There's plenty of advertising there, too. On this very page, right now, is an ad for credit counseling services. I listen to several podcasts. They are all advertiser-supported. It's pretty tough to find any quality content that doesn't include advertising, even if you do pay for the content. Look in any magazine. Even though you pay for the subscription, every issue is still 30-50% ads.

lol I didn't even notice the adds at the bottom until you mentioned them.... (currently seeing Merrill boot ad's as I just bought a pair yesterday and was re-searching an upgrade for hiking boots). I guess I was speaking with a distinction, that I failed to explain. The distinction I see between passive and active adds.

Active adds are the one's I'm referring to. I'd say these are generally anything that arrests your attention from what you were focusing on. I.e. Commercial interruption. You were actively focusing on a program weather listening or viewing, and that media content was completely re-focused from what you wanted, to what they wanted you to see. So if you were paying attention, there is a gap in the signal you were focused in on. (I'd imagine this re-focus of attention, impedes the info to "stick" to your memory, more than it would have been, w/o the interruption).

Passive adds are everywhere.... As you mentioned, stuffed into magazine pages, banners on web sites, pop ups, billboards, car advertising, etc... These are things i was not really focusing on, and they are competing for my attention. Where the active ones, force me (for a brief moment to pay attention). Passive adds may have some level of effect, but generationally speaking, I think roughly my generation (33 years old) and below have only seen ad's taking up every square inch of everything. So I feel pretty good about my ability to not let them steal my attention (although I bet there are some pro-add papers that show data otherwise).

All that being said, I will gladly pay to have less of my attention stolen.... I get a lot of people value their time less, or differently.

When you see or hear a show, podcast, website, anything put out by a company. And every sq inch of space on the site is filled with adds, or they interrupt every 15 minutes for an add break, or anything that is clearly them looking to get paid... You can often see how desperate that channel is, by how quickly their willing to sell out. Especially if they put out publicly, that they are successful. You can make the quick math, if they are trying to get much more than they need, to the point it is costing them some of the integrity of their message output. When "making More money" gets in the way " of the product" their providing, it's about as classy as "Jean shorts and Dirt driveways".... Just looks desperate, gluttons, who care about income more than what they're doing. At least for me, as of recent, it's been a pretty good "eye ball test" that their content is not worth supporting... When you hear more authentic people, it's easier to trust they're trying their best, and you get a lot less of a "B.S." feeling. I think the Joe Rogan podcast does this better than most. Costco gives me this feeling to (although not add related).. I just feel like "I'm pretty sure I'm not getting screwed". Heavy adds gives me this feeling often. I'd rather pay for authenticity and honesty, rather than received a well polished, add funded , committee created turd (at least how everything feels to me off of cable TV for example, news especially).

Does anyone else have this feeling? I don't mind some... I get sometimes adds are necessary for income. But Too many.... just makes it feel like a really really fake message.

[disneysteve]

Get off cable , get on podcasts, blods, forums, anything that doesn't have the long greedy hands of corporate money on it

Really? There's plenty of advertising there, too. On this very page, right now, is an ad for credit counseling services. I listen to several podcasts. They are all advertiser-supported. It's pretty tough to find any quality content that doesn't include advertising, even if you do pay for the content. Look in any magazine. Even though you pay for the subscription, every issue is still 30-50% ads.

[amarowsky]

This is true, though also not limited to student loans. I've seen plenty of young people get into big trouble with car loans, for example. They borrow a stupid amount to buy a car. Then a year or two later they decide they don't like that car, buy a new one, and roll the old loan into the new loan so that they are thousands of dollars underwater. It shouldn't be allowed, but it is. There is very poor regulation on the lending industry in general. But the banking lobby has far too many of our elected officials in their pockets.

Motivations from Our Gov: SPEND before you save please (not the way it has always been)
I think this is one of our Core issues in the USA these days.... Constant motivation+propaganda to finance the things you want today to pay for them in the future. Effectively arresting the lion's share of people's ability to save & thus prepare for ANY external disruptions.

If we had a decent interest rate, there would be a cost to spend though financing. And there would be a stronger "baked in" motivation to save, and purchase responsibly. I know, saving is BAD for the ownership class profits, in an economy. But we can't live on credit cards forever.... Even though our country is (in essence) doing that writing debt bonds against our petro dollar to complement our tax revenue for paying our spending.

Keeping interest rate low, is a strong way to keep people spending perpetually on the Hedonic Treadmill (those that are not tempted enough through advertising & new social-media norms). D.Steve's anecdote of leap frogging car ownership, because they get "boring" is a perfect example.

GDP CEILING ISSUE:
The issue I hear... Is we can not immediately jack up the interest rate. As this would cause the legions of people who have levered themselves to the hilt, to either default or be overtaken by interest (assuming not everyone was able to fix their interest rates, and some will feel the sting of variable financing). In a perfect world, it would have been slowly ramped up, causing people to be a bit more patient to buy the things they want. (But if I'm not mistaken, this will slow the economy). From what I read from Thomas Piketty's book "Capital" , he expressly mentions that there is no way to maintain a constant GDP growth of anything in excess of 3% long term. (Historically, all mature, well developed nations, will have excess of 3% GDP only during growth and/or unique circumstances [tech/raw material revolutions excluded]. Which makes our GDP targets unsustainable.. Most of these historical examples were from France, UK, Germany I believe. And for reigning 1st world developed nations, the sustainable average is supposed to be closer to 1-2%.

Please use this only as a consideration, that the point I'm sharing, that others have made evident to me, is this level of growth & consumption is not natural, and has a breaking point. GDP is a very antiquated metric, according to a lot of economists and intellectuals I follow. So perhaps we should STOP using GDP in common discussion (at the time I read this it made a lot of sense, [not using GDP as a metric] but to be honest I forget the specifics... I'll have to re-read up on this, but take any GDP data w/ a grain of salt... It's not what we oughta be focusing on).

Solutions: (or ideas in the right direction)
1) Demand products that are more sustainable (repairable, modular, upgradable, more buy it for life style)
2) Start to increase the interest rate, make people not feel liek FOOLS for saving cash for once... (a quick step back to the late 90's and early 2000's).
3) Teach people to consume less, or just live within their means.
4) Stop supporting free technology w/ advertisement driven models (if you can afford too).... Pay for your content, so your not constantly inundated with a relentless assault of advertisements. These ad's strongly impact the authenticity of the media you consume. It's not healthy, and it's promoting **** CONTENT. Nothing is free, if you're not paying for it, your likely the product. Change that. (Get off cable , get on podcasts, blods, forums, anything that doesn't have the long greedy hands of corporate money on it). So you're getting information & entertainment from individuals and not "executive sales teams" that assure nothing but garbage.
5) Don't buy **** you can't afford, to impress people you don't care about.
6) I'm sure we can come up with a lot of others....

[disneysteve]

on hand 2: We have a system of educational subsidies that is predatory on young, not fully developed minds.

This is true, though also not limited to student loans. I've seen plenty of young people get into big trouble with car loans, for example. They borrow a stupid amount to buy a car. Then a year or two later they decide they don't like that car, buy a new one, and roll the old loan into the new loan so that they are thousands of dollars underwater. It shouldn't be allowed, but it is. There is very poor regulation on the lending industry in general. But the banking lobby has far too many of our elected officials in their pockets.

[amarowsky]

you can look at it this way.... (to be honest I didn't read the article , but I'm following the information of the anecdote). I don't need to read this because it's a principle debate, as no one cares about this person that no one knows.

On hand 1: This person is not accepting their responsibility for a legal commitment they made earlier in their life at the start of school.

on hand 2: We have a system of educational subsidies that is predatory on young, not fully developed minds. And to further piggy back on that, (if the person is fortunate enough to have responsible and informed family/guardians to guide them) will support these kids singing up for massive piles of debt, based on a well propagandized social promise that your kids NEED to have college education. Because this can be emotionally fueled, it can get out of hand quick.

I am disappointed with this kid's mind set. But I have ZERO sympathy for these predatory lenders that are subsidized from the federal govt. They shouldn't be able to make money like this. And they should be bearing the risk for students that can't (or wont) pay their loans. They should have never unwritten such a ****ty loan for an awful product (L.A. Degree) as it's not worth that cost IMO. If the unitversity had to sell the degree for what it's actually worth, it wouldn't require such a massive loan in the 1st place. This is just poor motivators for this type of market.

We oughta not be screwing w/ this market AT ALL (We being, our gov't using our tax dollars poorly). Find a better way to educate our children. America needs, BADLY, to figure some of these important human capital systems out. (Healthcare & education being 2 of the big ones, Healthcare FYI being about 25x size the problem that education is) .

[myrdale]

The Dan Emery Mystery Band has a song titled Student Loan. One verse of the song discusses a girl he knew who was hiding out in Brazil.

[~bs]

Welcome to the jungle!