5 ms·
No. Society forced them into that choice. What on earth makes you think the choice was not coerced? A student before the age of 18 is presented with an option.
by littletimmy 11y ago
No. Society forced them into that choice.
What on earth makes you think the choice was not coerced? A student before the age of 18 is presented with an option. Here's one path - be in massive debt. Here's the other path - your hopes and dreams are shit. That's freedom? Hardly.
It's funny how all the moral hazard trolls come out of the woodwork as soon as something benefits poor people. Bank bailouts? No hazard. Corporate tax cuts? No hazard. Corporate subsidy? No hazard. Private prisons? No hazard. Help indentured slaves? HAZARD!
- tomohawk 11y agoNo. Ignorance is to blame. Can the 18 year old be expected to make good financial decision? Probably not, especially if they only have a government school education which most likely does not teach basic economics. However, does that 18 year old not have parents? And what do we end up with when these 18 year olds become 23 year olds with a load of debt and still no basic idea of economics or understanding what it means to go into debt? We end end up with an even bigger problem. Also, government is not society.
- ersii 11y agoI respectfully disagree. No one is forced to take out a loan and go to college or university. You said it yourself, they do have options. There might however be a lot more traction on one of the paths as compared to the other. You're presenting this proposition as that the only way someone can make it, is by pursuing a higher education (with severe debt). I, again respectfully disagree. It is not that binary. First of all, the path of not going into higher education is not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Secondly, there are many variations of how to finance your higher education. You do not have to take out a loan. Especially not for the full duration of your studies.