4 ms·
> if even they are struggling, then... how is the average person in that country even still [independently] alive??" Either they accrued capital already, or bo
by yodelshady 3y ago
> if even they are struggling, then... how is the average person in that country even still [independently] alive??"
Either they accrued capital already, or borrowing from relatives who did, or they're not living independently. They're sharing accommodation that would be cramped for two among six.
Lifestyles once only necessary for students are now de rigueur for established graduates, with the possible exception of better food.
- crtified 3y agoWhat about non-graduates - and why do we need that distinction? The few extra years of guided schooling it entails does not deserve to be a lifetime defining difference between the haves and the have-nots. "You achieved a university degree, so you deserve to be elevated for life" is little different in its entitlement bias than "you achieved house ownership, so you deserve to be elevated for life". Equality goes beyond such things.
- yodelshady 3y agoNon-graduates are also suffering, yes. Did I imply they deserved to suffer? If I did that's not the intention. However, a degree usually requires hard work (being born wealthy does not), and has been widely recognised as the best legal route out of poverty for decades. We are not a communist society and do expect hard work to lead to greater standards of life, on average, even if there are exceptional non-graduates and lazy graduates. If even the best legal route is failing en masse, then we are screwed.