• DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    More like, “we’ve invented a cure for cancer, but only people who have cancer right now can get it. People in the future are fucked once again and won’t get the cure.”

    Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      So we should just not let the people currently sick have the cure? 🤔

      Even in your analogy, curing any cancer today, even if it doesn’t extend to future sufferers, is an improvement over curing no one. Because fuck cancer, and fuck student loans.

      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      • yiliu@informis.land
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Imagine if researchers said: We’re working on a cure for cancer, and in the process we’ve generated a bunch of unobtanium. We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure. Obviously, if we use it all up now, we’ll be back to square one and have to start generating it again before we can work on a long-term cure. Which would you pick?

        “Unobtanium” is political will. If we just do a round of bailouts for current loan-holders instead of addressing the root cause of spiraling education costs, we’re just kicking the can down the road. The pressure will be off, a whole generation of 20- and 30-somethings will lose interest in the issue, and it’ll fall off the political radar for another few decades, by which time GenZ+ will be well and truly fucked, since educational costs are only going up and up.

        The absolute worst way to address rising education costs is to encourage a bunch of students to take ridiculously large loans and then wipe them off the books. That means: 1) schools can raise prices to the roof because they know students have access to mountains of cash from loans, and 2) students won’t hesitate to take the loans because they’ll probably just be forgiven eventually. Probably. Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lives…but hey, what choice do they have, that’s just what school costs (because governments make sure students have all the money they need for a bidding war to get in).

        So it amounts to just transferring huge piles of taxpayer money directly to overpriced schools and predatory banks, with no plan to stem the flow. It’s like trying to help your drug-addicted friend recover with a one-time gift of a brick of heroin. They’ll feel great for a while, and they’ll love you for it while it lasts, but it’s only going to make the problem much worse in the long run.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          “Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”

          Get out of here with that bullshit.

          • Welt@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they’re making instead of dismissing them out of hand?

            • Xhieron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it’s not deserving of a response.

              You don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.

              • yiliu@informis.land
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?

                “Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”

                If the US poured it’s full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn’t be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?

                You don’t let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just…a bad idea.

                • Xhieron@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?

                  I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don’t want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you’re bitter because you didn’t go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you’re just a troll. I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:

                  We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it’s too expensive to save him.

                  You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.

                  You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I’m not interested in debating with you.

        • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          We can use it as a one-time cure for a bunch of current cancer patients, or we can use it to continue further research towards a permanent, universally-available cure.

          How is this what’s happening? Who said it’s a one-time-only thing? Who said they can’t also research permanently available cure? Wouldn’t proving that removing the debt is a huge boon to everyone cause people to invest more in the idea of a cure?

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m on board, as long as we forcefully agree that cancelling the loans is a good thing - it’s just NOT ENOUGH

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I actually beat cancer. If they suddenly find a cure for cancer now I am going to be so fucking happy! This comment is about student loans…and fuck cancer.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I spent five figures paying mine off two years ago.

    Still 100% support my tax dollars paying for people’s college. In fact, I’d love that instead of the nine wars my tax dollars are paying for instead.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    From the school of “I suffered through [x], so therefore everyone else should suffer, too, even if they don’t need to.”

    There’s always going to be a cutoff point where someone has it harder or easier than those that came before. That’s just life. As long as the change wasn’t malicious, just feel good (or whatever is appropriate) for those that benefit from it.

    I work in a highly contract-controlled industry, and when things improve there’s always a segment of the group that might be close to retirement or something and gets all pissed that they didn’t won’t realize the benefits of a change that will apply mostly to those that will have longer under the change. They’re the same ones that removed that new employees didn’t suffer under whatever crappy work rules that might have existed before, too.

    So yeah…people that paid off their loans, or guys that I work with that paid for some/all of their kid’s college, removed about people catching a break on their loans. STFU and be happy that someone else caught a break.

    • shimdidly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      IDK. Some cringe-lord wants free stuff and wants your taxes to pay for it. Something about cancer.

  • Kadaj21@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have to wonder if my generation [Millenial] had any effect on university enrollments yet. My kids aren’t quite the age to talk about education plans as I had kiddos later in life @30yo (40 now). I’ll be strongly discouraging uni unless it’s completely unavoidable to what they want to do.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean the numbers still say that a bachelor’s degree doubles or triples your lifetime earnings over a high school diploma. Moreover, an educated society benefits everyone. College is still the right move at every scale. What we need to do is make it a more equitable system.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Maybe. Depends on how functional you are overall. Turns out I can pass college courses, but not keep a job so well.

        I’m really good at getting high paying jobs, but my executive function is terrible. I can’t keep the jobs.

        People with good executive function tend to not be aware of it as a factor. For them “getting that job” is the big uncertain hurdle on their path to success.

        Not once in my upbringing all the way through college graduation did anyone talk about keeping jobs. It was all about getting the job. I’ve gotten some pretty amazing jobs … and lost them.