• Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes that is how a loan works. You have interesting attached to loans.

    Everyone qualifies unless you fit certain disqualifying statuses such as drug dealing, didn’t register for the draft, etc.

    Taking the improper people and trying to educate them wastes time and money. That is how we ended up in this situation.

    Even in countries that offer “free” education, students earn just as much as Americans.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/upshot/an-international-final-four-which-country-handles-student-debt-best.html

    • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      My whole point is cost shouldn’t be a barrier to education. Loans only serve as a bridge to affording something otherwise unaffordable, but they don’t address the root cause.

      Which people do you consider “improper”? Are you saying only “proper” people should be educated? How do you make the distinction, and what is the benefit of having an uneducated portion of the population? Are you suggesting educated drug dealers are responsible for the general unaffordability of education?

      This sounds racially coded. I think you just outed yourself.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Test scores. That is how other countries do it that have cheap or free education. Only the best get to go. The other people just do trade school.

        • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hmmm, you’re still limiting the acquisition of knowledge to “proper” people.

          It makes no sense for the ones who pass a test to be the ones deserving of more knowledge, rather than those who may need the education more.

          Since education itself has no known negative side-effects, why limit access?

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            That is how most countries that provide free education work. If you had read the article, you would see they end up with just as much debt as Americans.

            Since education itself has no known negative side-effects, why limit access?

            Cost. Even in countries where it is free, they end up in just as much debt as here.

            There is no free lunch.

            • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Subsidizing the cost of public goods is absolutely within the government’s remit. Just because other countries do it one way doesn’t mean we have to either, and just because those citizens are also in debt doesn’t mean that withholding education makes it better.

              You benefit from publicly funded programs and infrastructure because it is deemed a benefit for society. Likewise, education as well as healthcare can be provided for all Americans more affordably than it is now. None of your presented arguments are a barrier to that possibility.

              Libraries do a pretty good job at being a social benefit that educates with the public funds they receive. Why not run all educational institutions similarly?

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 months ago

                Subsidizing the cost of public goods is absolutely within the government’s remit.

                We already do. Do you think public colleges don’t receive tax money?

                The barrier is simply cost. It would cost too much to do. We already run at a deficit, which is driving inflation. Taking on a wasteful cost, such as paying for idiots to get college degrees, would add zero benefits and destroy poor people with inflation.

                If we want to make it free, we need to ration it to only the best. I wouldn’t mind paying for it at that point.

                • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t think they receive enough. Education is not what’s driving the deficit, and the deficit isn’t what’s driving inflation. It’s mainly corporate greed.

                  There’s nothing wasteful about educating the population. It’s simply a qualitative good, which is not compatible with your quantitative mindset.

                  There’s no such thing as rationing knowledge. That’s a dangerous position. Why do you want people to be uneducated?

                  • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Why do you want people to be uneducated?

                    Why do you keep trying to build a strawman? LIke any resource, we have limits.

                    We need to spend those resources on the people best capable of using them.