Sure, but you’re framing that in a way to be as positive as possible about it. How about, “the 18 year old that wanted to defend criminals and get them out of violent crime offenses for huge profits”, and went into debt to pursue what they thought was going to be a hugely profitable career? Do you really think regular people, who go into debt just ~40k based on what the article states, should also be comp’ing that other case with perks/debt forgiveness? The article is specifically using an outlier case, who went into debt for a profession that’s respectable, to skew opinions…
Student debt is an issue in the states, I don’t disagree on that as far as I understand it at least. It’s just that a lot of the articles around the subject seem very heavily skewed by political bias, which is annoying. And me being annoyed by that, and wanting more neutral discussion, I don’t think of as bootlicking.
The fact that public defenders can’t afford their student loans is a crippling failure of our system which asserts a right to a lawyer for all accused regardless of ability to pay.
It’s not just violent criminals who need these defenders, it’s also the innocent who are accused of violent crimes. Both are equally invested in not going to prison. And you don’t know who’s which.
Sure, I get that not all lawyers are scum – though I do know a few that fit the very description I gave. But the point is more that you can find less ‘noble’ examples of people in massive debt, which may alter opinions on the subject. The article chooses to use a specific outlier to make the case more persuasive/concerning.
Like another thing I’d be curious about is the variance in debt levels between professionals who train at “regular” schools/colleges, and ones who train at “elite” schools like Harvard or MIT or whatever’s good down there these days. The impression I get as an outsider to the US system, is that the costs vary wildly between different tiers of schools – and that it’s entirely possible to get a decent career (middle class) even without a top tier school education. I’d suspect then that there’s a tranche of people who are going in to massive debt attempting to go to these more expensive options, without good reason for doing so – but it’s the individuals choice, at the end of the day.
And contrary to what some folks seem to think on here, an 18 year old is an adult in most countries, as far as I know. They’re old enough to be accountable for their actions. They can vote and all that. And these folks are often mid 20s by the time they get out / have fully accumulated their debt – so even more ‘old enough’. As long as they have ‘options’ to choose from, I find it questionable that people choosing the highest/most expensive options should be given the biggest break.
It’d make more sense to me to regulate the hell out of your schools, and have government enforce things like tuition caps for American citizen under grads etc – rather than have a kind of manic approach to debt forgiveness that flips every four years, which turns education affordability into a lottery. University endowment funds are a fairly clear argument for clipping those institutions wings a bit, and forcing them to give a break to the students. Heck, even here in Canada where we cap tuition, some of our universities have absurd amounts of money stockpiled.
The second sentence doesn’t only apply to folks going into the medical field, and I would say a lot of jobs help people.
Do you really think regular people, who go into debt just ~40k based on what the article states, should also be comp’ing that other case with perks/debt forgiveness?
Yes.
It’s just that a lot of the articles around the subject seem very heavily skewed by political bias
I think this is why I am not super interested in engaging with the particulars of your reply. Because you’re right, there is selection and political bias in this article. But not in the direction you think. Because the article completely omits the culture pressures that started the issues of student loans. That for many it was seen as the only path out of poverty, and wanting to foster that while still allowing markets to drive everything in the country, the government decided the loans was the correct solution. Since these were 18 year olds getting goods that could not be returned, the only market solution to that was make the loans not discharged on bankruptcy.
Once the costs were abstracted into the future, the tuition start to quickly rise, and with government backing the student loans, the loans rise with them. Since schools are now getting an order of magnitude more from each student they lure in, they heavily push the idea that you will be flipping burgers for minimum wage unless you have a degree, reframing university as not a place of higher learning for those with exceptional interest, to the necessary step after high school. This taking root devalues all degrees, but 4 year degrees in particular, leading to a drop in the salaries expectations of the professional class with 4 year degrees.
With this market driven strategy giving rise to these new problems, income driven payment plans become much more common, and with those being cut off, suddenly the 1.6 trillion dollar debt bubble in the US starts to become realized. Which is what this article is touching on from a more personal level.
All of that being said, reaching for criminal defense lawyers as your example of a morally abhorrent and greedy career track says much more about your bootlicking than anything. If you had a worthwhile conception of the problem and reality of it, you would have picked one of the much better examples.
It’s not just bootlicking. It’s outright anti American bootlicking. The right to a state provided attorney is a longstanding fundamental right in America. Its something we did right even though implementation has lacked. If you want every person who’s accused of violent crime to go to prison forever without defense you can go to el Salvador or another country without human rights
Yeah, I don’t really see a reason to engage with your posts either, at least not with any real conviction. It’s not a sign that you’re approaching a topic / other person in good faith if you’re defaulting to insults. Insulting people isn’t very persuasive, and just serves to further alienate moderates – it makes you seem like an unreasonable extremist with the personality of sandpaper underwear.
Sure, but you’re framing that in a way to be as positive as possible about it. How about, “the 18 year old that wanted to defend criminals and get them out of violent crime offenses for huge profits”, and went into debt to pursue what they thought was going to be a hugely profitable career? Do you really think regular people, who go into debt just ~40k based on what the article states, should also be comp’ing that other case with perks/debt forgiveness? The article is specifically using an outlier case, who went into debt for a profession that’s respectable, to skew opinions…
Student debt is an issue in the states, I don’t disagree on that as far as I understand it at least. It’s just that a lot of the articles around the subject seem very heavily skewed by political bias, which is annoying. And me being annoyed by that, and wanting more neutral discussion, I don’t think of as bootlicking.
The fact that public defenders can’t afford their student loans is a crippling failure of our system which asserts a right to a lawyer for all accused regardless of ability to pay.
It’s not just violent criminals who need these defenders, it’s also the innocent who are accused of violent crimes. Both are equally invested in not going to prison. And you don’t know who’s which.
Sure, I get that not all lawyers are scum – though I do know a few that fit the very description I gave. But the point is more that you can find less ‘noble’ examples of people in massive debt, which may alter opinions on the subject. The article chooses to use a specific outlier to make the case more persuasive/concerning.
Like another thing I’d be curious about is the variance in debt levels between professionals who train at “regular” schools/colleges, and ones who train at “elite” schools like Harvard or MIT or whatever’s good down there these days. The impression I get as an outsider to the US system, is that the costs vary wildly between different tiers of schools – and that it’s entirely possible to get a decent career (middle class) even without a top tier school education. I’d suspect then that there’s a tranche of people who are going in to massive debt attempting to go to these more expensive options, without good reason for doing so – but it’s the individuals choice, at the end of the day.
And contrary to what some folks seem to think on here, an 18 year old is an adult in most countries, as far as I know. They’re old enough to be accountable for their actions. They can vote and all that. And these folks are often mid 20s by the time they get out / have fully accumulated their debt – so even more ‘old enough’. As long as they have ‘options’ to choose from, I find it questionable that people choosing the highest/most expensive options should be given the biggest break.
It’d make more sense to me to regulate the hell out of your schools, and have government enforce things like tuition caps for American citizen under grads etc – rather than have a kind of manic approach to debt forgiveness that flips every four years, which turns education affordability into a lottery. University endowment funds are a fairly clear argument for clipping those institutions wings a bit, and forcing them to give a break to the students. Heck, even here in Canada where we cap tuition, some of our universities have absurd amounts of money stockpiled.
The second sentence doesn’t only apply to folks going into the medical field, and I would say a lot of jobs help people.
Yes.
I think this is why I am not super interested in engaging with the particulars of your reply. Because you’re right, there is selection and political bias in this article. But not in the direction you think. Because the article completely omits the culture pressures that started the issues of student loans. That for many it was seen as the only path out of poverty, and wanting to foster that while still allowing markets to drive everything in the country, the government decided the loans was the correct solution. Since these were 18 year olds getting goods that could not be returned, the only market solution to that was make the loans not discharged on bankruptcy.
Once the costs were abstracted into the future, the tuition start to quickly rise, and with government backing the student loans, the loans rise with them. Since schools are now getting an order of magnitude more from each student they lure in, they heavily push the idea that you will be flipping burgers for minimum wage unless you have a degree, reframing university as not a place of higher learning for those with exceptional interest, to the necessary step after high school. This taking root devalues all degrees, but 4 year degrees in particular, leading to a drop in the salaries expectations of the professional class with 4 year degrees.
With this market driven strategy giving rise to these new problems, income driven payment plans become much more common, and with those being cut off, suddenly the 1.6 trillion dollar debt bubble in the US starts to become realized. Which is what this article is touching on from a more personal level.
All of that being said, reaching for criminal defense lawyers as your example of a morally abhorrent and greedy career track says much more about your bootlicking than anything. If you had a worthwhile conception of the problem and reality of it, you would have picked one of the much better examples.
It’s not just bootlicking. It’s outright anti American bootlicking. The right to a state provided attorney is a longstanding fundamental right in America. Its something we did right even though implementation has lacked. If you want every person who’s accused of violent crime to go to prison forever without defense you can go to el Salvador or another country without human rights
Yeah, I don’t really see a reason to engage with your posts either, at least not with any real conviction. It’s not a sign that you’re approaching a topic / other person in good faith if you’re defaulting to insults. Insulting people isn’t very persuasive, and just serves to further alienate moderates – it makes you seem like an unreasonable extremist with the personality of sandpaper underwear.