c_crank

Are you able to do arithmetic?

Going for a college drop is analogous to the lottery, because losers will end up further behind those that skipped the expensive degree and lost money to inflation.

I think a four digit loan is already on the high end when one also needs to get a car, find a place to live and to rent, with no savings. You arguing that it is consistently much higher makes my case against taking loans stronger, not weaker.

Have you missed the part where adults are lying to children and telling them that the high salary their degree will earn them will pay for the loan?

Lying to teenagers who should, at some point, use their own judgment. You signed a paper for the loans, yes? Were you able to calculate that it would equal 45K or more of debt? How did you, yourself, think that you would manage to climb out of that debt with a job that you did not have, and would only have a chance of getting four years after graduating?

Why keep calling these people children past the age of twelve? There's a term for that period. Adolescence. It's supposed to imply some level of growth in independence and the ability to discern reality.

Yes, these adults gave these teenagers terrible advice. But the fact of the matter is, they can see exactly how much they would have to pay, with a job that they had no guarantee of. Teenagers of the current age have stopped listening to that advice. If you are stuck with the loans now, all you can do is call out mom, pop, and teachers for misleading you, but also yourself for believing them.

Because that would come at the expense of making human lives better.

Compound interest shouldn't be the primary factor in rejecting a four to five digit loan when you have low or zero income.

The trap the schools set is nasty. But it meets the nasty expectations people had that the economic boom of the 40s-50s, where everyone could just keep going to college and getting a high paying job and living it good forever. Some lessons you can only learn the hard way.

Inflation where I live has driven entry level job wages much higher than 11 bucks. I haven't seen rent rise quickly to match it - where I've seen the most price gouging in response has generally been on car payments and electricity.

I was told such things too. I also can process numbers. I knew that taking on an extra cost I could not pay would not be worth it without a guarantee of a high paying job, which is not something offered by going to school.

The younger generations certainly seem capable of that reasoning. They aren't taking on nearly as many student loans.

If one could make a case for it, I wouldn't mind in these specific scenarios of parents coercing their children to sign contracts that the financial burdens be transferred to their parents (parents who often tend to help pay such bills anyway). But is that what people generally propose as a solution?

The people I know making lower wages typically rent or live in places with not such a high expense. Their apartments are not as upscale as others are, but they are certainly livable.

Who forced these students to take the loans, exactly? Do you have a list of names?

Did you consider that everyone might have been making a mistake when they equated taking on large loans with getting out of poverty?

And those who do not want to deal with the risk of going through school and not getting a better job to pay for the onerous loans can just remain in their economic class.

It does not take professional training to see the price tag of a student loan and to question if one can reasonably pay it off in the future. Certainly, someone equipped with the skills needed to be accepted into a college that costs so much should be able to do the math required on that calculation.

The parents knew what they were getting into, still. They were making a decision knowing the consequences.

Anecdotally, I can name plenty of people near me who hold full time jobs without needing a four year degree.

But no one forced those people to take on those loans.

What would make it dystopian would be if this humanoid robot was then granted rights. As a servant, it could be useful.

The positives of easy translation seem outweighed by the negatives of giving biolabs easy protein hacking.

Did anyone force all those students to take student loans?

Both are asked by your various governments to spy on you. I am not privy to the most current technical details - if you go through old NSA presentations that Snowden revealed I am sure you'll get the general idea of how it works.

Google is bad, but every other company and your ISP and your hardware manufacturer is also probing your emails.

Doesn't explain why the big handful of tech companies all decided to work overtime on restricting content starting in 2016 and not earlier.

The power gained by their wealth is enough to make leaving the country easy, but not enough to "save" it, by any stretch.

Those richest thirds of Russians are still under Putin's thumb.

Counterpoint: neocons keep getting elected to Washington every other year.

Because the choice given to a voter is this:

Vote for a democrat, who destabilizes foreign countries as a matter of course, and puts their energy into rewriting a health care bill. Vote for a neocon, who destabilizes foreign countries as a matter of course, and puts their energy into keeping gas prices and taxes a little bit lower. Vote for Trump, who actually attempts to stop destabilizing foreign countries, and gets impeached and called a terrorist by everyone who suddenly thinks NATO and aggressive foreign policy is the most important thing in the world.

An actually democratic decision would be giving citizens a plebiscite, "Do you want to stop foreign intervention in X country: yes or no." It would be quite a long list, but the results of that vote would be nice to see.

Many Americans would be happy to vote to stop destabilizing countries across the ocean, given the choice.

Those who leave are not capable of fixing their state, because that requires power, and those with power rarely leave.

Calling him a superhero assigns him the moral value of things generally considered "good"

Perhaps to braindead fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I didn't try and push the term. It was used by people further up in the thread.

He represents the non-billionaire cohort about as well and faithfully as Trump did.

But the question is not about how he represents the non billionaire cohort, is it?