|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 19 2022 06:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 04:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:26 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 02:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My university in Norway was mostly free ($50 per semester tuition fee, couple hundred $ per semester for books), 40% of my student loans were turned into scholarships (happens automatically when you pass your subjects), but I still accumulated more than $35k in student loans. (I still needed a place to stay, food to eat, and beer to drink.) Today, as a teacher, because I have a master's degree and three subjects I can teach, my salary is significantly higher than the salary of other teachers who spent fewer years in university. (Something like 30% higher than someone with 4 instead of 7 years of education.) Among people with the same profession, there's a fairly direct correlation between people with more student loans and higher salaries.
If Norwegian student loans were erased tomorrow, it would to a greater degree benefit myself and others with longer education and higher pay, and it would hardly benefit poor people at all. Furthermore, I could have gotten by with less student loans. However, that would have meant I'd either have to work more or party less or eat less tasty food or engage less in relative luxury when I was a student.
While I understand that salaries in the US are less explicitly defined in relation to your level of education, that I guess a larger % of student loans are entirely necessary because they pay for tuition and that consequently the points I'm making for Norway aren't equally valid for the US, is there really no relationship between a) frugality and student loans and b) future pay and student loans?
If there is no such relationship, that literally nobody foregoes getting student loans because they don't want to incur the debt, and that nobody gets more student loans because they expect to earn a higher future salary because of it, then sure. Just erase all the debt, clearly it was incurred for everyone across the board regardless of choices they made and without granting any benefit. But if not getting student loans was a legitimate option for some people who got student loans and if some people get more student loans because that will enable them to get higher pay in the future, blanket student loan forgiveness strikes me as a rather poor method of redistribution.
Targeted student loan forgiveness (percentages of certain types of loans) or interest exemption is a different beast altogether, I can easily get behind both of those. Part of the issue here is that you are comparing 2 incredibly different countries with wildly different systems. As an example, 40% of people with student loans don't actually have a degree to show for it. Lots of people have lifelong debt without any benefit whatsoever. You have cited interest rates of Norway's loan system before. Imagine if it was (on average) 6% instead of that. There are a variety of other factors too, but those are some of the major ones. The discussion is not what would happen in Norway. The situations are wildly different and the societies the systems are a part of are also very different. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but someone without a degree in Norway has a lower chance of filing for bankruptcy from medical debt than someone in the US. I've never heard of a Norwegian person filing for bankruptcy from medical debt, that's not really a concept we have. Anyway, I agree that the countries and systems are very different and can't be directly compared, which is why I'm asking about stuff like 'to what degree does the size of your student loan influence your future pay' (because in Norway they're definitely related). Again, if they're not related, and if higher priced college/university is basically a scam, that's a more convincing argument in favor of blanket student loan forgiveness. But if people with $80k loans make 50% more than people with $20k loans, then erasing the entire debt for both those groups of people will be way more beneficial towards people who make more money. If people with $30k loans make more than people with 0 loan because they figured they couldn't afford college, then erasing the entire debt again favors the wealthier group. There are some careers where you of course make more money (STEM, Finance, Law, all the fields you associate with high pay) but it is not a generalized thing. Teachers generally have very poor pay in the US. And the reason I brought up 40% of people with debt not even having a degree was to show that even if we ignore the poor financial performance of a wide range of degrees, 40% of people with student debt don't even have a degree. They didn't finish. Why should not finishing mean you don't have to pay, though? I assume it's not that 40% were arbitrarily kicked out or failed for reasons entirely outside their own control. Mohdoo gave his answer, but I do want to offer my own perspective on this general question as well. It's definitely fair to say that the group with high debt, high salary is not necessarily the right one to target for loan forgiveness given limited government budget and other methods that do a better job of targeting the poors for aid. But one group that you can definitely sympathize with in general is the "got loans, but didn't get their money's worth for a college education" one. Didn't finish, bad job prospects, unlucky, can't work the right job for whatever reason. It's hard to pin down this group per se, but "didn't finish" is definitely one of the clear signs of not getting their money's worth. Furthermore, the US system definitely provides some real ugly perverse incentives on this front. For example, I would suspect that one way in which loans are correlated with bad educational outcomes is in how merit scholarships are generally handed out to the students most likely to pass, whereas lesser students have to pay their own way. And though it's not entirely fair to say that 18 year olds don't have agency, it's undeniable that college is dishonestly sold to a lot of them. Bad major choices are sold as something like gender studies, but that's less common than students pouring into seemingly-employable traps; a degree like Biology, for example, is sold as STEM and hyper-employable, but the reality of that is questionable. Few universities are seriously concerned about placements of students into jobs, just about getting their money. Even for engineering - a rather substantial (>30%) of my own graduating class was significantly underemployed after graduation for one reason or another. Obviously all this hints at a need for a much more thorough reform of the system. And I'm not the world's biggest fan of blanket loan forgiveness (although not of a repayment-starts-now cliff of ending the student loan moratorium either). But on a moral level, I definitely see why those who didn't finish into a group that deserves larger-than-average sympathy on the student loan front.
I would like to add on to this. Out of all my friends who attended college, whether they finished or not, none of my friends from wealthy families have any student loans. Only people from lower income families, among people I know, have any student debt whatsoever.
|
On January 19 2022 04:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 04:10 Starlightsun wrote:On January 19 2022 02:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
While I understand that salaries in the US are less explicitly defined in relation to your level of education, that I guess a larger % of student loans are entirely necessary because they pay for tuition and that consequently the points I'm making for Norway aren't equally valid for the US, is there really no relationship between a) frugality and student loans and b) future pay and student loans?
If there is no such relationship, that literally nobody foregoes getting student loans because they don't want to incur the debt, and that nobody gets more student loans because they expect to earn a higher future salary because of it, then sure. Just erase all the debt, clearly it was incurred for everyone across the board regardless of choices they made and without granting any benefit. But if not getting student loans was a legitimate option for some people who got student loans and if some people get more student loans because that will enable them to get higher pay in the future, blanket student loan forgiveness strikes me as a rather poor method of redistribution.
Given that the average cost of undergrad is over $44k a year (according to this source.), I think for most people the choice is either to take the loans or not go to college at all. If never going to college is what you mean by legitimate option, then I guess yeah. The message is ubiquitous that college graduates have much higher earnings over a lifetime, but anecdotally I hear a lot of people who struggle to find good paying jobs after graduation, who have to move back with family just to survive, and then are saddled with student debt besides. If Norwegian student loans were erased tomorrow, it would to a greater degree benefit myself and others with longer education and higher pay, and it would hardly benefit poor people at all. I'd be interested to see what percentage of people paying student loans in the US are considered poor. Not to be a stickler but public universities are 18k not 44k. Also community college i remember being 2-4k a year but dont quote me. Still a ton of money and its a mess but its not 44k a year for most people and there are other options out there.
My county's community college is ~2.4k a semester.
|
On January 19 2022 01:26 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 01:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I'm not sure trumps opponents should be eager for him to run. That lesson should have been learned in 2016. He may still have the fundamental appeal (to people who aren't republican partisans) of his new (and unique) ideas and anti establishment stance. Of course there's January 6, and the fact that his lack of interest and knowledge and skill prevented him from implementing his new ideas, so I'm not sure. Unfortunately for him, he lost the popular vote by 10 million, and this was BEFORE the election stolen nonsense which was topped off by Jan6. Any moderates or independents won’t push him over the edge like they did in 2016. Had even one state been overturned legally, (if there was actual fraud,) he might have had a shot. But going 0-60 in court cases combined with the unwillingness to accept defeat will forever cage his presidential aspirations. Anti establishment sentiment only works one time, but he became said establishment. He’s toast, and I can taste it. I’ve said it before but he will only be able to make his own social media / news network from here on out and maybe pull some candidates support and keep in the limelight that way.
Yeah I mean, on the other hand the 2020 covid reality will no longer be within voters' attention spans, whereas the reality of rising consumer prices may still be. Many would vote for trump because he's not a Democrat. If we see war in Ukraine, it might not go so well for Biden, whereas trump was the only modern president to not get into any new wars. The electoral college vote would undoubtedly be close, but of course it's hard to predict the future.
|
Predicting 2024 when we don’t even know which, if any of the candidates will still be fit to run. Biden and Trump are both over 70. Basically anything could happen. Add a billion other factors and it just isn’t a productive conversation at this point.
|
On January 19 2022 00:20 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2022 22:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 18 2022 20:25 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 18:57 gobbledydook wrote:On January 18 2022 18:39 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 17:35 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 18 2022 17:26 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 17:04 gobbledydook wrote:
Is it fair to cancel student debt? What about those who decided to pay their fees and not incur debt? What about those who decided not to go to college because of the debt?
Is it fair to abolish slavery? What about all of those who lived their lives in slavery? Is it fair to those who have been slaves for twenty years? Stop thinking in these vindictive terms, “someone might not suffer like other people have had to suffer, would that be fair to people who have suffered?” is such a crappy way to think. You can't really compare being forced into slavery with choosing to get into debt to get an education. I do believe the point is a valid one, a large number of people did the financially responsible thing and not took on debt they couldn't afford and missed out on the benefits. It is certainly vindictive, but it also needs to be addressed. I doubt the decision for many was done out of financial responsibility, the last generation had it hammered into them that higher education was the ticket to a good life, you HAD to go to college or youd wind up a loser. When you hammer that into a bunch of teenagers and then saddle them with immense amounts of debt that they have no conception of because again, theyre teenagers, is fucked up. Young people went to college because society promised them a good life for doing so, in return they got crap wages, exorbitant cost of living, and debt many aren't going to be able to pay off in their life time because the have crap wages and exorbitant cost of living. College debt is 100% a trap, but that wasnt the narrative we were fed til recently. Its obviously not literally slavery, but this idea of "X group had to suffer so Y group also has to suffer or its not fair to X group," is fucking stupid. I do believe the US is in dire need of some significant (re)distribution of resources, but I'm not convinced student loan forgiveness is a particularly good way of achieving this goal. I'm also reading that while your average american graduate has something like $40k student loans, the median for medical school is between $200k and $250k. However, doctors actually make loads, too - even though they incur massive debts, they might not be the ones most in need of student loan debt relief. Given staffing issues in US healthcare further disincentivizing people to become doctors seems like a bad idea. In any case though, just means test it, are you making more than like 300K or whatever large number where you can reasonably expect to pay off your debt quickly, then youre fine, are you making less? Bam, its gone. "The rich might benefit!" is not a real argument because the rich either have their debts paid off or are very easy to exclude from any benefits of student loan forgiveness. Abolishing slavery cannot be compared to this at all. For one, abolishing slavery didn't, for example, involve the government paying former slaves restitution. Here we are talking about taking the taxpayer money, that those people who didn't borrow money to go to college paid, and paying those who did borrow money. How is it fair to them for their money to be spent in such a way? Its obviously not literally slavery, but this idea of "X group had to suffer so Y group also has to suffer or its not fair to X group," is fucking stupid. Tax payer money being allocated in a way that benefits some but not all?! Egads! This is the same shit from people who argue that universal healthcare is bad because you're healthy and why should you pay taxes to subsidize healthcare for other sick people! We should be okay spending tax money on higher education because an educated society is a better off society. Just like its good to have universal healthcare because a healthy society free of obscene medical debt is a better off society. Feel free to want general higher education reform as well, so that people who didnt feel able to go to college can go to college and not be financially ruined, but this "Its not fair for this group not to suffer because other people did suffer!" shit is a crap mentality. The question of whether the government should subsidize future college tuition is different from the question of whether it should subsidize past college tuition. If tomorrow the government decided to subsidize future tuition people can react to that and go to college. That's not true for past tuition fees. It's also disingenuous to suggest that my attitude is a other people suffered so they should suffer mentality. I have no problem if the next generation does not need to suffer through crippling college debt. I am against people, having already made their choice, now get bailed out in favor of other people who you could argue had made a better decision. Wait, wait, youre telling me that if the government promised to forgive all future student loans youd just be... okay with that?... Im going to set that aside because of how asinine and arbitrary it is to deem current student debt holders as worthy of suffering but not the future generations for... reasons? Show nested quote +It's also disingenuous to suggest that my attitude is a other people suffered so they should suffer mentality. I have no problem if the next generation does not need to suffer through crippling college debt. I am against people, having already made their choice, now get bailed out in favor of other people who you could argue had made a better decision. Man I hope youre willing to put some consistency to this, "noone should have to pay into anything that doesnt entirely benefit them in a society" shtick. I can presume you also think universal healthcare is bad because thats bailing out the people who eat badly and have heart attacks, and I presume you dont like things like food stamps for bailing out the poor and food insecure? How about roads that you don't drive on, youre bailing out the people who use those roads, but you choose not to so why should you have to pay to maintain them? This is all ignoring the brutal realities of how badly this generation is doing when it comes to wealth, but yes, we should let everyone languish, after all, when they were 18 society pressured them into getting a college education and they signed up for colossal debt with no understanding of what that actually means because, again, they were fucking teenagers. Did what society told you to do and then society went, "Psyche!" but dont worry, society won't help you out because thats unfair to... people without debt?...
That's a ridiculous generalization of my viewpoint.
1) The US system of healthcare is ridiculous. People should be entitled to basic healthcare and then they can pay for extras if they want. That is not the case in the US and should be changed.
2) The US system of higher education is also ridiculous, colleges charge way too much. Not only in tuition but also more importantly mandatory dorm housing, services etc. That should be changed.
3) Making a policy that retroactively and selectively benefits some people over others due to their past financial decisions is inherently unfair. It is fundamentally different from universal healthcare or infrastructure, because that affects people in the future. If today a new road is to be built using my tax payer money, I can choose to drive on it or not, it is my choice. I can't go back 10 years and borrow money to go to college in order to benefit from debt forgiveness.
4) If your argument is we should have, say, heavily subsidized college education going forward, without debating whether that policy is a good policy at least it would be fair, since anyone could then go and utilize it in the future.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So apparently there's something strange happening around a few airports in the US due to 5G cell phone service deployment - lots of planes randomly going haywire (mostly Boeing international jets at this point):
Something is going on with Runway 10L at Palm Beach International Airport in Florida. Last week, a Bombardier-built CRJ200 regional jet on final approach had the strangest thing happen.
The aircraft’s radar altitude abruptly ran down to zero, causing repeated loud aural warnings: PULL UP WHOOP WHOOP DON’T SINK TOO LOW GEAR. The flight landed without incident in good weather, but it wasn’t the first time. “Exact same location multiple times the past two weeks,” the pilot, who was on the flight deck for both anomalies, told The Air Current.
The incidents were reported to the Federal Aviation Administration. It’s not known definitively if the radar altimeter behavior was related to pre-deployment testing of 5G telecommunication technologies, but the unexplained incident underscored the fears of aviators, as well as the confusion and increasing disruption that is now befalling U.S. commercial aviation.
International airlines like Emirates, Air India, Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways have cancelled flights to select cities, citing the 5G C Band interference risk to their aircraft. Boeing on Monday night sent a so-called multi-operator message to carriers flying 777 and 747-8s and “recommends operators do not operate 777 airplanes on approach and landing to U.S. runways” with 5G C Band notices starting on January 19 unless there is an alternative means of compliance with FAA directives, according to guidance reviewed by The Air Current.
Source
Some people on Twitter are really angry with the Biden government about it. Which I kind of understand, but also it's a pretty weird situation all around. Not sure what to think, but can't help but notice a completely bizarre event like this.
|
5g is not new. Not sure how this is a thing unless theres some gross incompetence somewhere.
If boeing is mostly impacted could it be incompetence on their part?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Bombardier and Airbus had problems with this too, so it's not just Boeing. Radar interference is definitely serious business.
Some certain 5G capabilities seem to be being deployed right about now, which is what makes it new. What went wrong and who is to blame, though, is unclear. Evidence points to one regulator, or another regulator, or telecom companies, or airliners, or someone else.
|
5g is a terrible technology with no business being rolled out. This is just another capitalism run amuck thing. If it has even a slightly negative impact on planes, scrap the entire thing.
|
Northern Ireland25475 Posts
On January 19 2022 09:41 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 00:20 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 22:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 18 2022 20:25 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 18:57 gobbledydook wrote:On January 18 2022 18:39 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 17:35 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 18 2022 17:26 Zambrah wrote:On January 18 2022 17:04 gobbledydook wrote:
Is it fair to cancel student debt? What about those who decided to pay their fees and not incur debt? What about those who decided not to go to college because of the debt?
Is it fair to abolish slavery? What about all of those who lived their lives in slavery? Is it fair to those who have been slaves for twenty years? Stop thinking in these vindictive terms, “someone might not suffer like other people have had to suffer, would that be fair to people who have suffered?” is such a crappy way to think. You can't really compare being forced into slavery with choosing to get into debt to get an education. I do believe the point is a valid one, a large number of people did the financially responsible thing and not took on debt they couldn't afford and missed out on the benefits. It is certainly vindictive, but it also needs to be addressed. I doubt the decision for many was done out of financial responsibility, the last generation had it hammered into them that higher education was the ticket to a good life, you HAD to go to college or youd wind up a loser. When you hammer that into a bunch of teenagers and then saddle them with immense amounts of debt that they have no conception of because again, theyre teenagers, is fucked up. Young people went to college because society promised them a good life for doing so, in return they got crap wages, exorbitant cost of living, and debt many aren't going to be able to pay off in their life time because the have crap wages and exorbitant cost of living. College debt is 100% a trap, but that wasnt the narrative we were fed til recently. Its obviously not literally slavery, but this idea of "X group had to suffer so Y group also has to suffer or its not fair to X group," is fucking stupid. I do believe the US is in dire need of some significant (re)distribution of resources, but I'm not convinced student loan forgiveness is a particularly good way of achieving this goal. I'm also reading that while your average american graduate has something like $40k student loans, the median for medical school is between $200k and $250k. However, doctors actually make loads, too - even though they incur massive debts, they might not be the ones most in need of student loan debt relief. Given staffing issues in US healthcare further disincentivizing people to become doctors seems like a bad idea. In any case though, just means test it, are you making more than like 300K or whatever large number where you can reasonably expect to pay off your debt quickly, then youre fine, are you making less? Bam, its gone. "The rich might benefit!" is not a real argument because the rich either have their debts paid off or are very easy to exclude from any benefits of student loan forgiveness. Abolishing slavery cannot be compared to this at all. For one, abolishing slavery didn't, for example, involve the government paying former slaves restitution. Here we are talking about taking the taxpayer money, that those people who didn't borrow money to go to college paid, and paying those who did borrow money. How is it fair to them for their money to be spent in such a way? Its obviously not literally slavery, but this idea of "X group had to suffer so Y group also has to suffer or its not fair to X group," is fucking stupid. Tax payer money being allocated in a way that benefits some but not all?! Egads! This is the same shit from people who argue that universal healthcare is bad because you're healthy and why should you pay taxes to subsidize healthcare for other sick people! We should be okay spending tax money on higher education because an educated society is a better off society. Just like its good to have universal healthcare because a healthy society free of obscene medical debt is a better off society. Feel free to want general higher education reform as well, so that people who didnt feel able to go to college can go to college and not be financially ruined, but this "Its not fair for this group not to suffer because other people did suffer!" shit is a crap mentality. The question of whether the government should subsidize future college tuition is different from the question of whether it should subsidize past college tuition. If tomorrow the government decided to subsidize future tuition people can react to that and go to college. That's not true for past tuition fees. It's also disingenuous to suggest that my attitude is a other people suffered so they should suffer mentality. I have no problem if the next generation does not need to suffer through crippling college debt. I am against people, having already made their choice, now get bailed out in favor of other people who you could argue had made a better decision. Wait, wait, youre telling me that if the government promised to forgive all future student loans youd just be... okay with that?... Im going to set that aside because of how asinine and arbitrary it is to deem current student debt holders as worthy of suffering but not the future generations for... reasons? It's also disingenuous to suggest that my attitude is a other people suffered so they should suffer mentality. I have no problem if the next generation does not need to suffer through crippling college debt. I am against people, having already made their choice, now get bailed out in favor of other people who you could argue had made a better decision. Man I hope youre willing to put some consistency to this, "noone should have to pay into anything that doesnt entirely benefit them in a society" shtick. I can presume you also think universal healthcare is bad because thats bailing out the people who eat badly and have heart attacks, and I presume you dont like things like food stamps for bailing out the poor and food insecure? How about roads that you don't drive on, youre bailing out the people who use those roads, but you choose not to so why should you have to pay to maintain them? This is all ignoring the brutal realities of how badly this generation is doing when it comes to wealth, but yes, we should let everyone languish, after all, when they were 18 society pressured them into getting a college education and they signed up for colossal debt with no understanding of what that actually means because, again, they were fucking teenagers. Did what society told you to do and then society went, "Psyche!" but dont worry, society won't help you out because thats unfair to... people without debt?... That's a ridiculous generalization of my viewpoint. 1) The US system of healthcare is ridiculous. People should be entitled to basic healthcare and then they can pay for extras if they want. That is not the case in the US and should be changed. 2) The US system of higher education is also ridiculous, colleges charge way too much. Not only in tuition but also more importantly mandatory dorm housing, services etc. That should be changed. 3) Making a policy that retroactively and selectively benefits some people over others due to their past financial decisions is inherently unfair. It is fundamentally different from universal healthcare or infrastructure, because that affects people in the future. If today a new road is to be built using my tax payer money, I can choose to drive on it or not, it is my choice. I can't go back 10 years and borrow money to go to college in order to benefit from debt forgiveness. 4) If your argument is we should have, say, heavily subsidized college education going forward, without debating whether that policy is a good policy at least it would be fair, since anyone could then go and utilize it in the future.
It is unfair, but sometimes bullets have to be bitten.
Not remotely comparable but to push things forward in my home country a degree of amnesty to people who committed heinous crimes was given. Fair to victims, or their families? Well absolutely not. Was it necessary to help resolve a long-standing conflict? Aye
In the absence of a snowball’s change in hell of root and branch reform of tertiary education, people feeling rightly aggrieved for their past prudence not benefitting them versus those who had debt forgiven is a worse option, but a worse option still to me seems to be the current status quo.
Aside from the personal debt burden, I assume there’d be a wider stimulative effect of people spending with that weight lifted, or having the freedom to start that business or what have you.
I’m framing this as a dichotomy when it isn’t theoretically, but I just don’t see the preferable option of actual reform being remotely, remotely plausible given recent trends of constant legislative gridlock
|
Northern Ireland25475 Posts
On January 19 2022 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
5g is a terrible technology with no business being rolled out. This is just another capitalism run amuck thing. If it has even a slightly negative impact on planes, scrap the entire thing.
How many Gs do we really need?
A terrible technology though? Capitalism run amok? I dunno I’m not especially well versed in it, I assume it’s an upgrade in networking capability which, at the current rate of demand for digital services seems to be necessary at some point no?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 19 2022 14:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
5g is a terrible technology with no business being rolled out. This is just another capitalism run amuck thing. If it has even a slightly negative impact on planes, scrap the entire thing. How many Gs do we really need? A terrible technology though? Capitalism run amok? I dunno I’m not especially well versed in it, I assume it’s an upgrade in networking capability which, at the current rate of demand for digital services seems to be necessary at some point no?
It's a much higher capacity cell technology, but not so much a straight upgrade in the sense of "the same thing as before, but more power" that you might assume. It might have some applications somewhere; I'm not really clear on what that is and all the people that talk about it usually seem like they're just babbling. Some people think it isn't worth it based on Chinese deployment. Some telecom companies are spending a lot of money on it (over $80B was spent on securing bandwidth for it, let alone construction). Has some problems with power usage and radiation and stuff. Apparently it also makes it so airplanes can't land, which is something I didn't know before but also kinda sucks.
I'm not a fan.
|
Honestly it's ridiculous how 5G is affecting planes, the 5G standard was devised many years ago and the plane manufacturers still haven't found a way to fix it? It shows just how incompetent they are.
|
On January 19 2022 14:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
5g is a terrible technology with no business being rolled out. This is just another capitalism run amuck thing. If it has even a slightly negative impact on planes, scrap the entire thing. How many Gs do we really need? A terrible technology though? Capitalism run amok? I dunno I’m not especially well versed in it, I assume it’s an upgrade in networking capability which, at the current rate of demand for digital services seems to be necessary at some point no?
There are fundamental properties of 5g that make it have a very low range unless you dump a lot of power into it. It has a bandwidth capability that is totally unnecessary right now. 4g can effortlessly stream 1080p. You really just don’t ever need more than that on a phone right now. 5g is only being released because of marketing and capitalism’s need to continually shove new shit down peoples throats. 4g should just be expanded and incrementally improved. 5g just isn’t good yet, if ever.
Here’s a bit about it https://www.businessinsider.com/5g-high-speed-internet-cellular-network-issues-switch-2019-4?amp
Like LL pointed out, this isn’t just a straight forward upgrade. In my eyes this is just capitalism forcing new products to exist.
On January 19 2022 15:34 gobbledydook wrote:
Honestly it's ridiculous how 5G is affecting planes, the 5G standard was devised many years ago and the plane manufacturers still haven't found a way to fix it? It shows just how incompetent they are.
It’s an incredible amount of work to qualify any change to aircraft design, especially when it comes to wireless communication. The new pointless phone shit needs to be compliant with core transportation infrastructure, not the other way around. If you were to guess, how many human lives do you think are suspended thousands of feet in the air on any given day? Is it not perhaps important to make sure that doesn’t get screwed with? I recommend you look into the process of making changes to aircraft infrastructure like you are describing. It sounds like you are speaking beyond your expertise just a smidge here.
Compatibility and non interference with aircrafts should have been an extremely early hurdle they had to get past when getting approval to build these stupid 5g towers. For this to happen shows an enormous regulatory failure of the government and extremely poor ethics on the part of the people building the towers
|
On January 19 2022 05:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 04:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:26 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 02:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My university in Norway was mostly free ($50 per semester tuition fee, couple hundred $ per semester for books), 40% of my student loans were turned into scholarships (happens automatically when you pass your subjects), but I still accumulated more than $35k in student loans. (I still needed a place to stay, food to eat, and beer to drink.) Today, as a teacher, because I have a master's degree and three subjects I can teach, my salary is significantly higher than the salary of other teachers who spent fewer years in university. (Something like 30% higher than someone with 4 instead of 7 years of education.) Among people with the same profession, there's a fairly direct correlation between people with more student loans and higher salaries.
If Norwegian student loans were erased tomorrow, it would to a greater degree benefit myself and others with longer education and higher pay, and it would hardly benefit poor people at all. Furthermore, I could have gotten by with less student loans. However, that would have meant I'd either have to work more or party less or eat less tasty food or engage less in relative luxury when I was a student.
While I understand that salaries in the US are less explicitly defined in relation to your level of education, that I guess a larger % of student loans are entirely necessary because they pay for tuition and that consequently the points I'm making for Norway aren't equally valid for the US, is there really no relationship between a) frugality and student loans and b) future pay and student loans?
If there is no such relationship, that literally nobody foregoes getting student loans because they don't want to incur the debt, and that nobody gets more student loans because they expect to earn a higher future salary because of it, then sure. Just erase all the debt, clearly it was incurred for everyone across the board regardless of choices they made and without granting any benefit. But if not getting student loans was a legitimate option for some people who got student loans and if some people get more student loans because that will enable them to get higher pay in the future, blanket student loan forgiveness strikes me as a rather poor method of redistribution.
Targeted student loan forgiveness (percentages of certain types of loans) or interest exemption is a different beast altogether, I can easily get behind both of those. Part of the issue here is that you are comparing 2 incredibly different countries with wildly different systems. As an example, 40% of people with student loans don't actually have a degree to show for it. Lots of people have lifelong debt without any benefit whatsoever. You have cited interest rates of Norway's loan system before. Imagine if it was (on average) 6% instead of that. There are a variety of other factors too, but those are some of the major ones. The discussion is not what would happen in Norway. The situations are wildly different and the societies the systems are a part of are also very different. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but someone without a degree in Norway has a lower chance of filing for bankruptcy from medical debt than someone in the US. I've never heard of a Norwegian person filing for bankruptcy from medical debt, that's not really a concept we have. Anyway, I agree that the countries and systems are very different and can't be directly compared, which is why I'm asking about stuff like 'to what degree does the size of your student loan influence your future pay' (because in Norway they're definitely related). Again, if they're not related, and if higher priced college/university is basically a scam, that's a more convincing argument in favor of blanket student loan forgiveness. But if people with $80k loans make 50% more than people with $20k loans, then erasing the entire debt for both those groups of people will be way more beneficial towards people who make more money. If people with $30k loans make more than people with 0 loan because they figured they couldn't afford college, then erasing the entire debt again favors the wealthier group. There are some careers where you of course make more money (STEM, Finance, Law, all the fields you associate with high pay) but it is not a generalized thing. Teachers generally have very poor pay in the US. And the reason I brought up 40% of people with debt not even having a degree was to show that even if we ignore the poor financial performance of a wide range of degrees, 40% of people with student debt don't even have a degree. They didn't finish.
Why should not finishing mean you don't have to pay, though? I assume it's not that 40% were arbitrarily kicked out or failed for reasons entirely outside their own control.Again, some of the sums seem exorbitant, the interest rate strikes me as absurd, education should be free or close to free, and I think the US is in dire need of serious redistribution of resources. BUT, I'm still seeing people making the decision to get expensive education and I think I'm seeing that in quite some cases, the more expensive education results in higher paying jobs. None of this is convincing me that non-targeted student debt relief is a particularly good method to achieve the redistribution of wealth that I acknowledge is important. I'm not saying "so they shouldn't have to pay". I am pointing out why the situation is very bad right now and a lot of people are suffering under debt they have no hope of ever paying off. Assigning guilt to matters of financial policy doesn't usually make sense. It is ethical to pay for addicts to get off of drugs, despite the long number of mistakes they have made in life. This is because not only is it good to help people, but society also benefits from having a contributing member of society who stops harming society. Asking ourselves if someone suffering "deserves" to be saved is not always the right approach. In a general sense, I would say the financial sector has been allowed (through capitalism) to exploit the working class to an extent that the ship is beginning to sink. 6% interest student loans are an example of this exploitation. The US government should not feel ethical collecting 6% interest on student loans. The entire loan system in the US is designed to exploit. The US government participating in this is criminal. The US government has guilt to atone for. This is a situation largely created by them.
If your aim here is to reduce suffering, why not focus on where the amount of money involved here can reduce the most suffering with an Executive Order, rather than this blind focus on student loans?
What if, instead of forgiving all student loans, he were to forgive (or rather have the government buy up debts) all debt for people earning below the median wage in the county (so yeah, in San Francisco that would be higher than in rural Oklahoma). Wouldn't that reduce considerably more suffering than blanket student debt forgiveness?
And if Trump can appropriate FEMA/military funds to build a wall, I'm sure there's some flimsy excuse Biden can use to appropriate Department of Education funds to pay off credit card debt. And if the lump some of debt we're talking about here is greater than the lump some of student loans, then we can lower the threshold: all debt for the lowest N percentile earners by county, with N such that the total amount is equal to the total amount of student debt you want forgiven.
|
Northern Ireland25475 Posts
Interesting, I’d sort of wondered why it was the 5th G that seemed to really drag out the tinfoil folks, as if the previous 4Gs and other descendants weren’t the same.
I hadn’t paid attention to the tech as, honestly 3G sufficed for most of my mobile experience, and 4G is more than enough
My nearest bustop has been painted, and frequently flyered with anti 5G stuff, the guy even puts his name to it, but I’ve yet to track him down.
Sorta makes sense in the ‘ok I can see why they think that’ rather than ‘this is correct’ if 5G has such an absurdly low effective range vs 4G for its benefits and thus necessitates considerably more masts etc.
My previous skimmages had only really outlined the potential throughout, low latency and bandwidth capacity of 5G, I hadn’t realised it was accomplishing this via a much higher concentration of receivers/transmitters.
I mean, I could accomplish similar feats if I wandered around direct cabling myself to the nearest access node.
I still, having only skimmed this and other articles am a tad confused as to how this is effecting aircraft, given 5G’s range. I’m assuming radar data is relayed from ground stations to aircraft and its those being fucked with?
Mohdoo Island is sounding more tempting by the day, only 4G on your mobile and you have the exciting opportunity to experience the benefits of Natural ImmunityTM
|
On January 19 2022 14:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 13:31 Mohdoo wrote:
5g is a terrible technology with no business being rolled out. This is just another capitalism run amuck thing. If it has even a slightly negative impact on planes, scrap the entire thing. How many Gs do we really need? A terrible technology though? Capitalism run amok? I dunno I’m not especially well versed in it, I assume it’s an upgrade in networking capability which, at the current rate of demand for digital services seems to be necessary at some point no?
It's kinda complicated. The criticism of 5G from tech circles is understandable and largely justified after the last couple years of struggles we've seen with it.
In simple terms, there are 3 different tiers of 5G based on the frequency. The first, called low band 5G, essentially operates as a slightly faster version of the 4G LTE that's been common for years now. Signal isn't an issue as this version of 5G can broadcast large distances from towers. It operates in the sub 1Ghz frequency range, again similar to 4G LTE (and 3G, etc.). Some carriers in the US use this version of 5G while others opted to stay on 4G LTE and only use the next version of 5G I'm going to talk about.
Next, there's high band(millimetre-wave) 5G, which operates at very high (up to 40Ghz if I remember right) frequencies. This was the initial version of 5G that got a lot of attention in 2019. High band 5G allows for download speeds in the multiple gigabits range. It has huge, showstopping flaws though. Tower range for high band 5G is terrible. Not only that, but the signal can't go through a lot of materials. Some types of glass, concrete, even trees can cause signal problems with mm-wave 5G. When I say the tower range is bad I mean that coverage maps for it are usually on the city block scale. Due to these severe limitations, role out of high band 5G has been largely limited to city centres in bigger cities and even then coverage is unreliable at best.
Finally there's mid band 5G (also referred to as C-band 5G), which is faster than low band and can operate in the ~1-6Ghz frequency range with transfer speeds in the hundreds of megabits. The tower range on mid band 5G is generally a few kilometres. This version is where they're running into issues. US cell service providers bought spectrum in this frequency range since. despite being slower than high band 5G, mid band 5G offers a speed boost over low band 5G. The problem is that the specific bits of the frequency spectrum the US telecoms bought happened to be somewhat close to a frequency that could potentially interfere with aircraft altimeters. The concern is that cell signals at these frequencies may interfere with some older altimeters that operate on slight lower frequencies than newer altimeters do. Not all planes have been retrofit with new altimeters, which leads to the current issue and is why we're seeing airlines ask that mid band 5G towers within certain distances of airports not be turned on. They don't want to risk a plane's altimeter bugging out when a plane is attempting to land as that would be very very very bad.
In summary, 5G has been problematic for US (and from what I've seen, Canadian) cell providers. In practice, low band 5G has barely outperformed the long-used 4G LTE networks in terms of download speed, and in some cases has been slower (to the point that providers even admitted that the difference between the two in practice was marginal). Millimetre-wave 5G has been a mess that most people can't even use in the first place. In attempting to patch things up, the carriers have now been trying to get mid band 5G rolled out, but are facing a lot of setbacks. All of this money has been spent and all of this new tech has been created to barely do a better job, and in some cases do a worse job, than the old version. None of this was necessary. 4G LTE worked fine and was still being upgraded frequently. 5G has largely just been a marketing gimmick that fell apart and was too complicated to begin with.
|
Norway28674 Posts
On January 19 2022 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 05:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 05:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 04:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:26 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 02:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My university in Norway was mostly free ($50 per semester tuition fee, couple hundred $ per semester for books), 40% of my student loans were turned into scholarships (happens automatically when you pass your subjects), but I still accumulated more than $35k in student loans. (I still needed a place to stay, food to eat, and beer to drink.) Today, as a teacher, because I have a master's degree and three subjects I can teach, my salary is significantly higher than the salary of other teachers who spent fewer years in university. (Something like 30% higher than someone with 4 instead of 7 years of education.) Among people with the same profession, there's a fairly direct correlation between people with more student loans and higher salaries.
If Norwegian student loans were erased tomorrow, it would to a greater degree benefit myself and others with longer education and higher pay, and it would hardly benefit poor people at all. Furthermore, I could have gotten by with less student loans. However, that would have meant I'd either have to work more or party less or eat less tasty food or engage less in relative luxury when I was a student.
While I understand that salaries in the US are less explicitly defined in relation to your level of education, that I guess a larger % of student loans are entirely necessary because they pay for tuition and that consequently the points I'm making for Norway aren't equally valid for the US, is there really no relationship between a) frugality and student loans and b) future pay and student loans?
If there is no such relationship, that literally nobody foregoes getting student loans because they don't want to incur the debt, and that nobody gets more student loans because they expect to earn a higher future salary because of it, then sure. Just erase all the debt, clearly it was incurred for everyone across the board regardless of choices they made and without granting any benefit. But if not getting student loans was a legitimate option for some people who got student loans and if some people get more student loans because that will enable them to get higher pay in the future, blanket student loan forgiveness strikes me as a rather poor method of redistribution.
Targeted student loan forgiveness (percentages of certain types of loans) or interest exemption is a different beast altogether, I can easily get behind both of those. Part of the issue here is that you are comparing 2 incredibly different countries with wildly different systems. As an example, 40% of people with student loans don't actually have a degree to show for it. Lots of people have lifelong debt without any benefit whatsoever. You have cited interest rates of Norway's loan system before. Imagine if it was (on average) 6% instead of that. There are a variety of other factors too, but those are some of the major ones. The discussion is not what would happen in Norway. The situations are wildly different and the societies the systems are a part of are also very different. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but someone without a degree in Norway has a lower chance of filing for bankruptcy from medical debt than someone in the US. I've never heard of a Norwegian person filing for bankruptcy from medical debt, that's not really a concept we have. Anyway, I agree that the countries and systems are very different and can't be directly compared, which is why I'm asking about stuff like 'to what degree does the size of your student loan influence your future pay' (because in Norway they're definitely related). Again, if they're not related, and if higher priced college/university is basically a scam, that's a more convincing argument in favor of blanket student loan forgiveness. But if people with $80k loans make 50% more than people with $20k loans, then erasing the entire debt for both those groups of people will be way more beneficial towards people who make more money. If people with $30k loans make more than people with 0 loan because they figured they couldn't afford college, then erasing the entire debt again favors the wealthier group. There are some careers where you of course make more money (STEM, Finance, Law, all the fields you associate with high pay) but it is not a generalized thing. Teachers generally have very poor pay in the US. And the reason I brought up 40% of people with debt not even having a degree was to show that even if we ignore the poor financial performance of a wide range of degrees, 40% of people with student debt don't even have a degree. They didn't finish.
Why should not finishing mean you don't have to pay, though? I assume it's not that 40% were arbitrarily kicked out or failed for reasons entirely outside their own control.Again, some of the sums seem exorbitant, the interest rate strikes me as absurd, education should be free or close to free, and I think the US is in dire need of serious redistribution of resources. BUT, I'm still seeing people making the decision to get expensive education and I think I'm seeing that in quite some cases, the more expensive education results in higher paying jobs. None of this is convincing me that non-targeted student debt relief is a particularly good method to achieve the redistribution of wealth that I acknowledge is important. I'm not saying "so they shouldn't have to pay". I am pointing out why the situation is very bad right now and a lot of people are suffering under debt they have no hope of ever paying off. Assigning guilt to matters of financial policy doesn't usually make sense. It is ethical to pay for addicts to get off of drugs, despite the long number of mistakes they have made in life. This is because not only is it good to help people, but society also benefits from having a contributing member of society who stops harming society. Asking ourselves if someone suffering "deserves" to be saved is not always the right approach. In a general sense, I would say the financial sector has been allowed (through capitalism) to exploit the working class to an extent that the ship is beginning to sink. 6% interest student loans are an example of this exploitation. The US government should not feel ethical collecting 6% interest on student loans. The entire loan system in the US is designed to exploit. The US government participating in this is criminal. The US government has guilt to atone for. This is a situation largely created by them. Freezing downpayments and interest sounds like a viable solution without having to cancel the loans. That's more of a weaker kick of the can down the road than a solution. At least canceling student debt actually solves the problem of having student debt for millions of people. Granted neither solve the larger fundamental problems of the exploitative and oppressive system which the schools are indoctrinating people to be "productive" in.
Yeah, it's not a solution, but I don't see blanket debt forgiveness as one either, so I prefer kicking the can down the road while finding a proper solution rather than going with one I perceive as bad. 
Again, targeted student debt cancelling has merit, the main problem with that is finding a system that accurately targets it. Something like cancel $20k for everyone is something I could get by - even though the physicians with $230k debt but $250k yearly salaries don't need them, it's not that big of a deal, either, however it's a big deal for the ones with $30k debt if it's reduced to $10k.
But like, I actually do believe in the principle of 'if you borrow money you should repay it'. The big issue I have is with the interest rates, making people have to pay $180k when they borrowed $100k. That's totally fucked.
|
@Ben...
Thanks for clarification.
|
On January 19 2022 17:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2022 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 19 2022 05:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 05:35 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 05:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 04:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 19 2022 04:26 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2022 02:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My university in Norway was mostly free ($50 per semester tuition fee, couple hundred $ per semester for books), 40% of my student loans were turned into scholarships (happens automatically when you pass your subjects), but I still accumulated more than $35k in student loans. (I still needed a place to stay, food to eat, and beer to drink.) Today, as a teacher, because I have a master's degree and three subjects I can teach, my salary is significantly higher than the salary of other teachers who spent fewer years in university. (Something like 30% higher than someone with 4 instead of 7 years of education.) Among people with the same profession, there's a fairly direct correlation between people with more student loans and higher salaries.
If Norwegian student loans were erased tomorrow, it would to a greater degree benefit myself and others with longer education and higher pay, and it would hardly benefit poor people at all. Furthermore, I could have gotten by with less student loans. However, that would have meant I'd either have to work more or party less or eat less tasty food or engage less in relative luxury when I was a student.
While I understand that salaries in the US are less explicitly defined in relation to your level of education, that I guess a larger % of student loans are entirely necessary because they pay for tuition and that consequently the points I'm making for Norway aren't equally valid for the US, is there really no relationship between a) frugality and student loans and b) future pay and student loans?
If there is no such relationship, that literally nobody foregoes getting student loans because they don't want to incur the debt, and that nobody gets more student loans because they expect to earn a higher future salary because of it, then sure. Just erase all the debt, clearly it was incurred for everyone across the board regardless of choices they made and without granting any benefit. But if not getting student loans was a legitimate option for some people who got student loans and if some people get more student loans because that will enable them to get higher pay in the future, blanket student loan forgiveness strikes me as a rather poor method of redistribution.
Targeted student loan forgiveness (percentages of certain types of loans) or interest exemption is a different beast altogether, I can easily get behind both of those. Part of the issue here is that you are comparing 2 incredibly different countries with wildly different systems. As an example, 40% of people with student loans don't actually have a degree to show for it. Lots of people have lifelong debt without any benefit whatsoever. You have cited interest rates of Norway's loan system before. Imagine if it was (on average) 6% instead of that. There are a variety of other factors too, but those are some of the major ones. The discussion is not what would happen in Norway. The situations are wildly different and the societies the systems are a part of are also very different. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but someone without a degree in Norway has a lower chance of filing for bankruptcy from medical debt than someone in the US. I've never heard of a Norwegian person filing for bankruptcy from medical debt, that's not really a concept we have. Anyway, I agree that the countries and systems are very different and can't be directly compared, which is why I'm asking about stuff like 'to what degree does the size of your student loan influence your future pay' (because in Norway they're definitely related). Again, if they're not related, and if higher priced college/university is basically a scam, that's a more convincing argument in favor of blanket student loan forgiveness. But if people with $80k loans make 50% more than people with $20k loans, then erasing the entire debt for both those groups of people will be way more beneficial towards people who make more money. If people with $30k loans make more than people with 0 loan because they figured they couldn't afford college, then erasing the entire debt again favors the wealthier group. There are some careers where you of course make more money (STEM, Finance, Law, all the fields you associate with high pay) but it is not a generalized thing. Teachers generally have very poor pay in the US. And the reason I brought up 40% of people with debt not even having a degree was to show that even if we ignore the poor financial performance of a wide range of degrees, 40% of people with student debt don't even have a degree. They didn't finish.
Why should not finishing mean you don't have to pay, though? I assume it's not that 40% were arbitrarily kicked out or failed for reasons entirely outside their own control.Again, some of the sums seem exorbitant, the interest rate strikes me as absurd, education should be free or close to free, and I think the US is in dire need of serious redistribution of resources. BUT, I'm still seeing people making the decision to get expensive education and I think I'm seeing that in quite some cases, the more expensive education results in higher paying jobs. None of this is convincing me that non-targeted student debt relief is a particularly good method to achieve the redistribution of wealth that I acknowledge is important. I'm not saying "so they shouldn't have to pay". I am pointing out why the situation is very bad right now and a lot of people are suffering under debt they have no hope of ever paying off. Assigning guilt to matters of financial policy doesn't usually make sense. It is ethical to pay for addicts to get off of drugs, despite the long number of mistakes they have made in life. This is because not only is it good to help people, but society also benefits from having a contributing member of society who stops harming society. Asking ourselves if someone suffering "deserves" to be saved is not always the right approach. In a general sense, I would say the financial sector has been allowed (through capitalism) to exploit the working class to an extent that the ship is beginning to sink. 6% interest student loans are an example of this exploitation. The US government should not feel ethical collecting 6% interest on student loans. The entire loan system in the US is designed to exploit. The US government participating in this is criminal. The US government has guilt to atone for. This is a situation largely created by them. Freezing downpayments and interest sounds like a viable solution without having to cancel the loans. That's more of a weaker kick of the can down the road than a solution. At least canceling student debt actually solves the problem of having student debt for millions of people. Granted neither solve the larger fundamental problems of the exploitative and oppressive system which the schools are indoctrinating people to be "productive" in. Yeah, it's not a solution, but I don't see blanket debt forgiveness as one either, so I prefer kicking the can down the road while finding a proper solution rather than going with one I perceive as bad. Again, targeted student debt cancelling has merit, the main problem with that is finding a system that accurately targets it. Something like cancel $20k for everyone is something I could get by - even though the physicians with $230k debt but $250k yearly salaries don't need them, it's not that big of a deal, either, however it's a big deal for the ones with $30k debt if it's reduced to $10k. But like, I actually do believe in the principle of 'if you borrow money you should repay it'. The big issue I have is with the interest rates, making people have to pay $180k when they borrowed $100k. That's totally fucked.
They're both kicking the can while finding a proper solution, one immediately solves the problem of having student loan debt for millions of people and the other doesn't.
I think divorcing "if you borrow money you should repay it" from the capitalist dogma that generates the demand for borrowing student loans in the first place is irresponsible. Without that capitalist dogma anyone would struggle to rationalize student loans as they exist in the US at all.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone in the US with student loan debt (or medical debt for that matter) got scammed by greedy capitalists and incompetent (at best) government. That makes the notion said debtors should "pay what they borrowed" or whatever horribly misguided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
