Comment on Financially rewarding and you will always have a job

• MisterOwl@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  He chose to get an education he couldn’t afford, so he took out loans. Now he is in debt.

  Either he did this with his eyes open, in which case it’s his problem to solve,

  OR

  He did this WITHOUT knowing the consequences, in which case he should have fucking read the fine print and it’s his problem to solve.

  I agree the cost of education is out of control, but nobody forced him to do it. He chose to. Now he can deal with it.

  source

  • Scranulum@feddit.nu ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    So when a tradesman’s back finally gives out and he gets fired for not showing up to work, he should not be eligible for unemployment, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, housing assistance, subsidized health insurance, or any other publicly funded assistance. That’s his problem to solve.

    After all, the data has always shown that this is the sacrifice you make by not going to college. Degrees have always been economically worth it in the long run, and that information was always readily available, so why is it everyone else’s problem and cross to bear when one more plumber decides he actually can’t do this job until he’s in his mid sixties? We should just let people die for making poor choices.

    OR

    We live in a society that requires a variety of skill sets and knowledge bases, including the trades, retail, food service, the sciences, the humanities, medicine, and plenty of other fields that require postsecondary study. We should remove all financial barriers to education, and we should eliminate student debt, because it serves no purpose other than lining the pockets of large financial institutions. And generally speaking, you know, we should take care of glaring issues we see in our society, like a plumber who can’t work for medical reasons or a Ph.D who can’t effectively contribute to society because he’s crushed by student debt. And we should do both of those things with public assistance programs.

    Also, “should have read the fine print” is a dead giveaway for being on the unethical side of an argument.

    source