6 ms·
I don't think your dystopic vision is what's happening here. From the article: > The Walmart employees will not be obligated to continue working for the compan
by morley 8y ago
I don't think your dystopic vision is what's happening here. From the article:
> The Walmart employees will not be obligated to continue working for the company after they get their degrees, and must put up only $1 a day toward the cost of classes.
- snackbugs 8y agoPerhaps. But it certainly is yet another incremental step, among many others, back towards that dystopic vision.
- adventured 8y agoNo it's not. It was much worse before. This is in fact a step forward away from that dystopic vision.
- zoul 8y agoIs it? Wouldn’t it be better if the loans were not needed because the education would be paid by state? Doesn’t this actually cement the current situation?
- pchristensen 8y agoNo - this is a raise in the form of subsidized education, and it's hard to see how that's worse. I'm very dependent on my employer because I live off of my salary, but that doesn't make it a dystopia. If they wanted me to learn X, and paid for my training in X, I may not enjoy that as much as the cash value of the training but it's still a benefit to me. For Wal-Mart, the employee can leave whenever, they will either forfeit their incomplete program or graduate and now have a degree. This is literally the classic CFO/CEO exchange: CFO asks CEO: What happens if we spend money training our people and then they leave? CEO: What happens if we don't and they stay?
- tracker1 8y agoBut what education? Are even half of those graduating in a program that is in relative demand? I think that higher education funding, if publicly funded, should be entirely based on demand and merit.
- jumbopapa 8y agoI don't think this guy actually read the article.