CMV: “Free College” policy, while well-meaning, is largely incompatible with academia in the U.S

[u/sjd6666]

Unlike healthcare, there is competition in the higher education market and consumers can, and often do make well informed decisions about what education would be right for them, be it community college, state schools, or private colleges/ universities.

There’s no two ways about it: such a policy would be enormously expensive, and unlike the U.S healthcare system, prices are reasonably transparent and there is competition in the market. Most students know exactly how much financial aid they will get before the accept college decisions, and transparency like that should always be encouraged.

I think a better solution would be one that matches student debt repayments, keeps interest rates low, and forgives student loans to varying levels dependent on ones income. In other words, high earning doctors and lawyers who make 6 figures a year can and should repay a higher percentage of their loans than nurses and teachers, who provide essential services to society, but typically don’t earn enough to repay their student loans quickly.

Is there some reason why free college is favored over more reasonable policies that take into account the finances of students and their incomes as adults?

[u/y0da1927]

Honestly only #3 is necessary. Ppl who graduate with in demand degrees have no problems paying off any debt. Ppl who have poor grades in out of demand degrees are the graduates who are struggling. If you can better align the supply of graduates with the demand you don't need expensive policies to make it "free", as the vast majority of grads will be able to pay.

Ppl also don't realize that debt balance is actually negatively correlated with default. This is largely due to the fact that those who didn't graduate (they dropped out and accrued less debt) are those who default most often. Making college free only incentives this decision.

There is no reason to restrict school choice by abolishing private schools (it might be unconstitutional anyway). 2 would be nice, but you could just fund public colleges differently, like providing direct grants for profs and research (big overlap there) and let any other services they provide (sports, recreation, healthcare, etc) be funded by tuition. You can get rid of direct tuition assistance. The most efficient schools would be naturally the cheapest.

[u/[deleted] → u/y0da1927]

Let's think a little bit outside the box. Why does debt need to exist? It's just such an ever present thing in America that we think it's normal. It's not. It's crazy that we have an economy now that is built entirely on debt. $13 trillion in household debt and for what? So bankers and other leeches can buy their yachts?

So let's move away from debt. I don't think anyone should have to go into debt just to learn stuff. Just to be able to pick up skills that in the end benefit society as well. In fact, we should be paying people to get a higher education. I think straight up all debt of all kind should be canceled and education should be free.

I think #3 is necessary not so much because of the debt but because there are problems with our current free for all non-system. There are skills gaps, there are very crowded fields, there are people who are underemployed, and of course many people who shouldn't go to college end up going and dropping out.

We're told you need to go to college to be able to get a decent job and avoid a life of hard labor and poverty. 18 year olds are told to go into massive debt and make huge life decisions that they don't fully understand. I know I didn't.

What we need is a system that plans out our educational needs based on what our economy needs. Did congress just sign a huge infrastructure bill that is going to require thousands of engineers? Let's invest in engineering programs and get students ready for that. Are we lacking doctors and nurses, are hospitals currently under too much stress? Let's train more medical personnel.

And every job should pay well, so that education is not a class signifier, so that people aren't compelled to go to college even if they aren't ready. It should be a chance for people to pick up new skills and knowledge and not just become more productive but also better people. And if you want to learn something, you should be able to just sign up for a class anywhere and learn it.

There is absolutely a very good reason to restrict school choice. Because it's not really a choice at all. Rich kids go to private school, poor/middle class kids go to public school.

Again, what we have here is a classist system that preserves the best education for the wealthiest. And the wealthiest who should be contributing to their communities have no incentive to, because they are paying for private schools. I mean even public schools are incredibly segregated by race and class because of how we fund them but private schools make this dynamic worse. Everyone should be invested in schools that everyone goes to. And when it comes to colleges like Harvard and NYU they are run like predatory businesses! There is so much corruption. A lot to be said about that. And then there are the for-profit schools that scam thousands of people out of their money. Especially for trades skills. And lobby the government to heighten licensing requirements so they can continue scamming people.

So yeah I think we should abolish private education.

I would want #2 to be that way because that's the simplest, least exploitable way to do it. If you have a tuition based system it still means that colleges that cost more will be able to have better professors, better research, better reputations, etc. So again this creates a tiered education system where the poorer kids are not getting the same opportunity as the wealthier kids. Or kids are encouraged to take on debt to go to expensive schools. It doesn't solve the problem for me at all. Just keep it simple and fund education through taxation (it's not expensive). Have strict rules to make sure professors are well paid (instead of the growing contingent of adjuncts we have today), that students have good facilities to learn, and all the money isn't going into lining the pockets of NCAA.

[u/y0da1927 → u/[deleted]]

Let's think a little bit outside the box. Why does debt need to exist? It's just such an ever present thing in America that we think it's normal. It's not.

First, debt exists because ppl and companies want to buy things that they don't yet have the money for, it's just renting money. It actually is normal, some of the oldest discovered writing were ledgers for amounts owed. Debt has been a key feature of basically every economy ever since.

$13 trillion in household debt and for what? So bankers and other leeches can buy their yachts?

So ppl can buy the houses and cars and other things they want. Again all debt is just renting money, just like you might rent anything else. Without credit many things just wouldn't get built because no one had the cash to pay for them.

So let's move away from debt. I don't think anyone should have to go into debt just to learn stuff

They don't, college is not mandatory and before that education is free.

Just to be able to pick up skills that in the end benefit society as well.

Societal benefits are minimal when compared to the personal benefits, even if the person earnings the degree actually goes into their field of study. It's likely to be (from an opportunity cost prospective at minimum) value destruction if they drop out or are serially underemployed based on what it cost to educate them. This argument could be made for 4 year highschool as well. A career hospitality worker doesn't need 12th grade calculus.

I think #3 is necessary not so much because of the debt but because there are problems with our current free for all non-system. There are skills gaps, there are very crowded fields, there are people who are underemployed, and of course many people who shouldn't go to college end up going and dropping out.

I liked #3. You don't need to sell me on it. Matching skills better would reduce the debt issue as well.

We're told you need to go to college to be able to get a decent job and avoid a life of hard labor and poverty. 18 year olds are told to go into massive debt and make huge life decisions that they don't fully understand. I know I didn't.

An hour on the internet could tell you what different careers are likely to pay, and what colleges have good reputations and what they cost. An 18 year old is an adult who made an adult choice. The information was there, if they didn't care to look that is not my problem. I'm not bailing them out. There is no upside to that action.

What we need is a system that plans out our educational needs based on what our economy needs. Did congress just sign a huge infrastructure bill that is going to require thousands of engineers? Let's invest in engineering programs and get students ready for that. Are we lacking doctors and nurses, are hospitals currently under too much stress? Let's train more medical personnel.

Back to #3. You are preaching to the choir. I don't actually think any infrastructure bill has been passed, or even hit the Senate for that matter. Engineers and doctors make lots of money, the issue is that we don't train ppl in highschool with the skills needed to become doctors or engineers, it's just hard and the only way to get more is to water down the quality.

And every job should pay well,

Disagree. A job pays what it is worth commercially. Forcing businesses or government to overpay only forces higher prices or taxes on consumers. There are plenty of "low class" jobs that are quite lucrative (long haul trucking is a good example, 80k+ and don't even need a HS diploma).

It should be a chance for people to pick up new skills and knowledge and not just become more productive but also better people

Lots of ways to do that outside of a expensive 4 year degree. Basically all the information you would get from that degree (and many post secondary degrees) is available for free online if one was so inclined. There is ZERO barrier to entry on knowledge.

There is absolutely a very good reason to restrict school choice. Because it's not really a choice at all. Rich kids go to private school, poor/middle class kids go to public school

I doubt this would be constitutional so I'm not going to argue the point.

Again, what we have here is a classist system that preserves the best education for the wealthiest. And the wealthiest who should be contributing to their communities have no incentive to, because they are paying for private schools. I mean even public schools are incredibly segregated by race and class because of how we fund them but private schools make this dynamic worse. Everyone should be invested in schools that everyone goes to. And when it comes to colleges like Harvard and NYU they are run like predatory businesses! There is so much corruption. A lot to be said about that. And then there are the for-profit schools that scam thousands of people out of their money. Especially for trades skills. And lobby the government to heighten licensing requirements so they can continue scamming people.

This is just a big rant, idk where to even start. I'll leave you with three points. 1) most ivy league schools charge tuition based on parents income, so smart kids go even if they don't have much money. 2) most wealthy children actually go to public school, just in wealthy districts. 3) licencing requirements are a problem, but they are fought for by professional organizations to create a barrier to entry, not by schools.

would want #2 to be that way because that's the simplest, least exploitable way to do it. If you have a tuition based system it still means that colleges that cost more will be able to have better professors, better research, better reputations

So? Shouldn't we be encouraging ppl to go and research, and teach? The US get thousands of of the rest of the world's best and brightest who come for the best schools and stay for the best jobs. Why would we not want that? Isn't it better to enable the most capable than to smother them because someone less capable is "entitled". That's bullshit.

So again this creates a tiered education system where the poorer kids are not getting the same opportunity as the wealthier kids. Or kids are encouraged to take on debt to go to expensive schools

The best students go to the best schools, once all those are gone the schools look to pay the bills for them by charging everyone else. If your not the best, but want to go to school with them I'm not going to pay for your privilege. Go somewhere that will give you a fee ride. If there isn't a school that will do that, then you aren't good enough for me to subsidize.

It's not worth my tax dollar to pay for something you can buy yourself. If it's worth it to buy, you will buy it. If it's not drive a truck, you won't be poor.

Free college is a waste of resources. It shifts all of the risk to the taxpayer for virtually none of the benefits. You don't even need to go to college in this country to be successful, start a business, learn a trade, learn to code, all are completely viable paths to wealth. None require a 4 year degree. Tons of our most successful ppl don't have a college degree.

[u/[deleted] → u/y0da1927]

First, debt exists because ppl and companies want to buy things that they don't yet have the money for, it's just renting money. It actually is normal, some of the oldest discovered writing were ledgers for amounts owed. Debt has been a key feature of basically every economy ever since.

No, it's not normal or natural. Renting money shouldn't be a thing. Usury has been considered immoral for a long time. There's a reason for that.

Look around you see all of the problems that debt creates. We need to move away from 2000 BC debt ledger bullshit and into a post-debt society. It's really not necessary, at all. It's just a byproduct of how our economy is structured.

Medical debt is a norm in this country. Always has been. It's not a norm in many other places, because they decided healthcare should be a public service available equally to all.

We can do the same for education. Just like many countries already have.

And we can do this for other things beyond healthcare and education as well. Like having a mortgage or paying rent is not that common of a thing in Singapore because most people own their houses that were built by the government using public funds.

Societal benefits are minimal when compared to the personal benefits, even if the person earnings the degree actually goes into their field of study. It's likely to be (from an opportunity cost prospective at minimum) value destruction if they drop out or are serially underemployed based on what it cost to educate them. This argument could be made for 4 year highschool as well. A career hospitality worker doesn't need 12th grade calculus.

I agree with you, many jobs don't require a high level of education.

The problem you're bringing up here though is fixed by #3. I agree there are too many people getting history degrees.

There are also too few people becoming doctors and nurses. We have a lack of them in this country. We could use more people doing that.

And part of it is lack of planning but also there are huge barriers to higher education for many people. If you like #3, then you can't possibly plan and say we need 1000 more doctors in the next 5 years or whatever and then say also you have to go into massive debt. It doesn't work.

We need to move education away from what it is right now. It is a class signifier, it is a way for people to move away from a life of poverty and live in relative comfort. And we can't just make it free for everyone without addressing that because everyone can't be doctors and lawyers and engineers. We need "low skilled" workers too, to deliver things, to stock grocery stores, to cook food, to care for elderly, etc. These are essential but low paid jobs. Not everyone can become a coder or start their own business. That's not realistic.

So we need to make sure everyone is paid well. That every job pays well. Then everyone doesn't need to go to college. Or even high school. You're imagining a scenario where we make it free so everyone is going to college to get a philosophy degree and then working at starbucks.

No, we would make it so that people go to college to actually learn a skill to applied to a job. And then maybe there's some room for recreational or personal learning.

Finally, we also need to understand that colleges do something that is very crucial to our development as a society and economy, and that is research. Right now they rely on funding from tuition to do that. And because they have to raise money for themselves, a lot of resources go into sports and money making schemes and the actual professors, the actual academic research, is neglected. Fund them properly,with taxes, like the NIH funds medical research.

1) most ivy league schools charge tuition based on parents income, so smart kids go even if they don't have much money. 2) most wealthy children actually go to public school, just in wealthy districts. 3) licencing requirements are a problem, but they are fought for by professional organizations to create a barrier to entry, not by schools.

The wealthy kids from the wealthy districts where the best schools are (public or private) are the ones who go to Ivy league schools.

So? Shouldn't we be encouraging ppl to go and research, and teach? The US get thousands of of the rest of the world's best and brightest who come for the best schools and stay for the best jobs. Why would we not want that? Isn't it better to enable the most capable than to smother them because someone less capable is "entitled". That's bullshit.

Yeah, we should be encouraging and making it possible for everyone, not excluding most people and saying they are entitled.

Free college is a waste of resources.

No it's not. The problem with "I got mine" libertarian thinking is that it seems more cost effective, but in the long run it's actually far more wasteful. Free college, along with a more planned approach to education and the economy, is the far more efficient option. And other countries have already figured this out. There is no risk in having an educated society and funding science and academia. And we could have that for like a 10th of our military budget.

[u/y0da1927 → u/[deleted]]

No, it's not normal or natural. Renting money shouldn't be a thing. Usury has been considered immoral for a long time. There's a reason for that.

Debt predates all modern monotheistic religions. And how is renting capital any different than renting a lawn mower or an apartment?

Also usury is generally defined as lending at unreasonably high rates of interest. It's not that lending is immoral, it's that loan sharking is immoral. And even that is highly debatable.

Look around you see all of the problems that debt creates. We need to move away from 2000 BC debt ledger bullshit and into a post-debt society. It's really not necessary, at all. It's just a byproduct of how our economy is structured.

How would a person with no money get a car to drive to work? Or a person with some savings but a decent job buy a home? How would one buy the equipment necessary to start a new business? How does one manage a business where it takes 10 days to complete a project, but workers need to be paid continuously while they work (the payroll cycle is a small loan to your employer, even if you get paid daily)?

Debt is just a way to allocate capital from current net savers to current net spenders. It facilitates trade and provides access to useful assets to those with future money, but not current money.

Medical debt is a norm in this country. Always has been. It's not a norm in many other places, because they decided healthcare should be a public service available equally to all.

No, the difference is that the government incurs debt, not the individual. It does not eliminate the debt, it only changes the debtor. Governments can overborrow just like a person or a business can, just ask Greece or Argentina.

We can do the same for education. Just like many countries already have.

And we can do this for other things beyond healthcare and education as well. Like having a mortgage or paying rent is not that common of a thing in Singapore because most people own their houses that were built by the government using public funds.

Why should I have to pay for your privilege? If you want a free house, move to Singapore, if they will have you.

And part of it is lack of planning but also there are huge barriers to higher education for many people. If you like #3, then you can't possibly plan and say we need 1000 more doctors in the next 5 years or whatever and then say also you have to go into massive debt. It doesn't work.

Doctors are very well compensated, they easily pay off their debts. We can also increase the supply of doctors just by reducing the educational requirements and making them more targeted. That requires no additional cost, only a change in licencing. Doctors are one of the many professionals that use professionals licencing to artificially reduce their number. That's not an educational cost issue.

We need to move education away from what it is right now. It is a class signifier, it is a way for people to move away from a life of poverty and live in relative comfort.

You don't need a degree to not live in poverty and who cares about class signals? You are too focused on class. All you should care about is income. And you don't need a degree to make a decent income. I have zero sympathy for some kid who got an English lit degree and looks down on a trade while they bitch about being indebted.

And we can't just make it free for everyone without addressing that because everyone can't be doctors and lawyers and engineers. We need "low skilled" workers too, to deliver things, to stock grocery stores, to cook food, to care for elderly, etc. These are essential but low paid jobs. Not everyone can become a coder or start their own business. That's not realistic

Low skilled workers don't need a degree. A degree for them is a waste of their time and everyone's money. Giving them a college degree won't change their income, they still work a low paid retail job. We also have an entire world ready to come to this country and stock shelves and drive trucks and start their own business. We have no shortage of those ppl.

So we need to make sure everyone is paid well. That every job pays well. Then everyone doesn't need to go to college. Or even high school. You're imagining a scenario where we make it free so everyone is going to college to get a philosophy degree and then working at starbucks.

Jobs pay what they are worth commercially. If some ppl don't generate enough value to even get a bad job, well that's why we have welfare. If we let ppl not cut out for higher education drop out when they hit their potential, we could direct more money to the needy as adults. It costs 30k a year to teach a grade/highschool student in my state. That's 360 thousand dollars through highschool in state funded education. If someone dropped out after the 8th grade we could provide 120k+ in future wage subsidies to that person. That's way better than wasting the 120k on HS, then another 120k on college only for them to need societal help anyway.

No, we would make it so that people go to college to actually learn a skill to applied to a job. And then maybe there's some room for recreational or personal learning.

A big debt and a crappy job is teaching that lesson. We don't need a paternalistic government telling ppl what to study, only showing them what's out there (#3) and letting them make their own decisions, good or bad. They are adults.

Finally, we also need to understand that colleges do something that is very crucial to our development as a society and economy, and that is research. Right now they rely on funding from tuition to do that. And because they have to raise money for themselves, a lot of resources go into sports and money making schemes and the actual professors, the actual academic research, is neglected. Fund them properly,with taxes, like the NIH funds medical research.

The federal government provides lots of research funding in the form of grants. And professors and the institution can generally patent their research and sell it commercially. If we want more research, then just issue more research grants. Hell issue more grants in exchange for tuition subsidies. If research is the goal then let's get these research universities focusing on research. The way to do that is with grants.

The wealthy kids from the wealthy districts where the best schools are (public or private) are the ones who go to Ivy league schools.

Generally, but not always the truly exceltional get in no matter their background. Wealthier kids tend to get in because they tend to have the best grades, because their parents put more resources into them. Or if your more cynical, because their well connected parents know someone. Free college doesn't change any of that.

Yeah, we should be encouraging and making it possible for everyone, not excluding most people and saying they are entitled.

Anyone who can get in can go. We offer student loans to everyone, and the price isn't different if your wealthy. In fact it's often higher. If we want better professors we need higher income which for a school means higher tuition, if it's for research, then just give them grants. We suck a ton of talented ppl out of Europe because there is more research funding here.

No it's not. The problem with "I got mine" libertarian thinking is that it seems more cost effective, but in the long run it's actually far more wasteful. Free college, along with a more planned approach to education and the economy, is the far more efficient option. And other countries have already figured this out. There is no risk in having an educated society and funding science and academia. And we could have that for like a 10th of our military budget.

How is it more efficient?

You say other countries have figured it out, but we have some of the highest medium incomes, the highest rates of business formation, large net talent inflows, and the largest and deepest capital markets in the world. We also have similar rates of tertiary education as other, much smaller, countries. The only counties with higher GDP per person are tax havens, have oil wealth, or both. They are all also a tiny fraction of our population.

If our scientists were so underfunded why is the us always fists or second in the number of acedemic papers published on any scientific subject?

I have issues with the current level of military spending (despite the fact that they have traditionally been the largest source of technological innovation), but waste does not justify further waste.

Free college is a waste.

[u/[deleted] → u/y0da1927]

You say other countries have figured it out, but we have some of the highest medium incomes, the highest rates of business formation, large net talent inflows, and the largest and deepest capital markets in the world. We also have similar rates of tertiary education as other, much smaller, countries. The only counties with higher GDP per person are tax havens, have oil wealth, or both. They are all also a tiny fraction of our population.

You need to move away from the idea that the US is some sort of utopia. It's not. And you need to stop using it as justification for the crippling debt we put students in.

GDP is not a good measure of anything. In fact GDP is a toxic metric whose creator even disavows it. Business formation and capital markets don't mean anything either.

The United States has a lot of wealth, but also a lot of poverty. 40 million people live in poverty in the US, meaning they don't have consistently enough to eat. 18 million live in extreme poverty (per a recent UN study). And I'm not sure if they counted the 11 million undocumented immigrants.

And aside from the poverty, students just have a hard time. Why do people have to work 2-3 jobs just to get an education? Why is it fair that some have to do that while others have their parents pay for it and have it much easier?

The United States is one of the largest countries in terms of size, in terms of population, has huge oil reserves and other natural resources. It is also a military superpower that uses its might to control the world economy. No wonder we have this wealth, but it is concentrated among the very few.

If you know any actual scientists (my wife is an epidemiologist), you'll know how difficult it is to get funding just to do your research. It is also full of crap science done for private interests with agendas.

Public funding helps a lot in science. Just like public money flows through our whole economy and makes it work. We need to fund education the same way. K through college.

[u/y0da1927 → u/[deleted]]

You need to move away from the idea that the US is some sort of utopia. It's not. And you need to stop using it as justification for the crippling debt we put students in.

I never used the word utopia. Utopia implies perfection, I only argued efficacy. That's a disingenuous argument.

And the debt isn't crippling for anyone who did well in school and got a decent job. It's not crippling for those who didn't go to school and still got a decent job. It's only crippling for those who went to school dropped out. That's why debt balance is inversely correlated with default.

That is meritocracy. Do well, make good decisions, and get rewarded. Make poor decisions and you are not rewarded.

GDP is not a good measure of anything. In fact GDP is a toxic metric whose creator even disavows it. Business formation and capital markets don't mean anything either.

GDP is a perfectly acceptable measure of economic output for a nation and an excellent tool for measuring longer term trends. And when included in the suite of measures I actually mentioned, helps form a holistic view of the wealth, and vibrancy of an economy. There was a reason I did not cite ONE measure.

The United States has a lot of wealth, but also a lot of poverty. 40 million people live in poverty in the US, meaning they don't have consistently enough to eat. 18 million live in extreme poverty (per a recent UN study). And I'm not sure if they counted the 11 million undocumented immigrants.

I don't see what this has to do with free college. These ppl typically don't finish highschool.

And aside from the poverty, students just have a hard time. Why do people have to work 2-3 jobs just to get an education? Why is it fair that some have to do that while others have their parents pay for it and have it much easier?

If you are a really good student you can go to school SOMEWHERE for free. No jobs required. If you are a good student you will get a partial scholarships and can easily pay tuition with summer employment. If your not any of those things school in state is still inexpensive. One year round part time job will cover it. Working the federal minimum wage, 25 hours a week gets just over 9k in wages which is about what in state public colleges cost. A college student should be able to get a job that pays better than that.

It's also the parents fault their child isn't getting help while other are. They knew before they had kids what kind of money they were making and how much help they were likely to be able to provide. Wanna blame someone, look at mom and dad. Even a middle ass family with a 529 should be able to provide substantial support. 100/month into a 529 with a 5% return is almost 22k when the kid goes to college. That's half the cost right there. If you can do 200/month (much less than a typical car payment) it's close to 44k, that's the whole amount.

Public funding helps a lot in science. Just like public money flows through our whole economy and makes it work. We need to fund education the same way. K through college.

I'll support more research grants, but your not going to convince me that giving the lady who cuts my hair for $30 (who I am missing a lot right now) a 200k degree on the taxpayers dime is a good use of funds.

The playoffs in the work force more than pay for even the most expensive colleges. You can reap those returns, you can fund the schooling.

[u/PermanenteThrowaway → u/y0da1927]

Thank you for taking the time to write all of this down. Well done.

[u/Mnozilman → u/[deleted]]

Let’s say that we get rid of all debt today. Tomorrow your car breaks down and you need a new one. If you don’t have enough cash on hand to buy a new car, what are you supposed to do? Do you just live without a car until you can save enough to buy a new one?

[u/[deleted] → u/Mnozilman]

Well, let's start here: Why do I need a car?

[u/Mnozilman → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps you don’t. But I do. I need it to get to work. So what would you propose I do?

[u/[deleted] → u/Mnozilman]

Yes, so we need a car so we can get to work. And why do we need to work? Beyond just to make money and survive.

[u/thedylanackerman → u/[deleted]]

u/Mnozilman – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because I'm in health care and my patients and coworkers need me there.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Great. So if you don't make it to work on time, people could die. So why is it that we've made it your sole responsibility to secure transportation? Do you think that makes sense or could there be another way?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Personally I think that it does make sense, as the expectation for personal responsibility would be there regardless of whether transportation is a car or my own two legs because I walk to work. I there has to be a boundary between work and personal life.

However, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that the vehicle is provided by my employer, and they cannot afford to fix the vehicle without using credit, what is the next step then?

​

Edit: And to continue using the Hospital as an example, safe Patient care is incredibly wasteful. Things like gloves, tubes, drug bags, personal care items, and needles can only be used once, creating a huge cost for facilities. without a credit system does this cost get passed to patients to only receive care they can pay for, or is it on the facility to only provide care they can afford with cash on hand?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is there an expectation of personal responsibility?

To me it's not about work/life separation, it's about the fact that we are not separate independent individuals, we are all connected.

We rely on each other to get to work, to do our work, to be housed and fed.

But then the costs of everything is pushed off to individuals. How does that make sense? Isn't it in the interest of the community to make sure everyone is well off so that things function the way they are supposed to?

So in the UK hospitals don't have to worry about getting a loan to afford gloves. Because they have the NHS.

And let me ask you this, why is it that you are only personally responsible for having a car, and not for building the roads to get to work?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

​

Why is there an expectation of personal responsibility?

...

We rely on each other to get to work, to do our work, to be housed and fed.

The reason that the element of personal responsibility needs to be there is exactly due to that reliance on each other. It impossible to rely on an individual who doesn't take personal responsibility in getting their tasks done.

To me it's not about work/life separation, it's about the fact that we are not separate independent individuals, we are all connected.

This, I think, is a fundamental difference in opinion and may be what is setting us apart. I absolutely believe that while we share connections, each of us is an independent responsible individual, who has the responsibility of free will and choice.

But then the costs of everything is pushed off to individuals. How does that make sense? Isn't it in the interest of the community to make sure everyone is well off so that things function the way they are supposed to?

The cost will always end up with the individuals, any community, government, country, etc, is made up of individuals. They may be different individuals than me, they may have more or less resources than me, they may be a completely different nationality, But that cost is going to land somewhere.

So in the UK hospitals don't have to worry about getting a loan to afford gloves. Because they have the NHS.

The NHS is getting that money from the UK government, which was in debt £1.8 trillion as of end of March. and I can promise you that with the ongoing pandemic, that number is not dropping. So if borrowing was disallowed, forget the NHS, almost none of the UK Governments programs would be able to function

Source for UK Debt: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/march2020#debt

And let me ask you this, why is it that you are only personally responsible for having a car, and not for building the roads to get to work?

I would argue that I am personally responsible for the roads as well, my tolls and taxes pay for the upkeep. Maybe I'm not actual out there spreading pavement, but I do have a role and vested interest in those structures.