this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
1726 points (98.2% liked)

Comic Strips

19690 readers
2791 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DeadMartyr@lemmy.zip 26 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I mean I sold 4 years of my life to the military to not have to take loans out, so I get the gut reaction

The main cause of the student loan issue is the commodification of education. Everyone wanted to go to college and at first it was optional but then as more people did it it became a requirement, then they realized they can charge more and more for education that is worse and worse because a good chunk of people dont actually want to learn / be there. They're just there for the paper that'll let them get jobs and not be unemployed, or even just to say that they went.

I look around and people are playing damn Pokémon Showdown in class, there was that one scandal of an influencer girl who was the daughter of someone important that bought her admission to Stanford(?) and would stream literally about how she didn't care about education she just wanted the college experience.

Hot take: Not everyone should be going to college, High School should just prepare people better. Even if we forgive all loans right now it doesn't fix the issue. Instead of your problem it will just be your kids' problem

[–] PaintedSnail@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

While I agree in theory, I'm not really sure there's much that can be done in practice. The genie is out of the bottle here: jobs want the paper, so people get the paper, leading to jobs expecting people to have the paper. An employer is unlikely to deliberately "lower their standards" (in their view) if the pool of potential employees with a degree is large enough for their needs already. Since you can't legislate that employers are not allowed to require a degree, and you can't expect people to not get a degree and sacrifice their own potential future to break that cycle, we're kind of at an impasse.

That's why the only way forward that anyone's figured out so far is government funded higher education.

Edit:typos

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It also reinforces the class system. 'elite' employers won't even look at you if you don't come from an ivy or a top 5/10 school.

and there are fewer and fewer of these 'elite' jobs to go around, hence the paranoia among the upper middle classes that their children will have zero future if they don't get into an ivy.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

There is a lot that can be done in practice. One, employers are asking for degrees because they can. If you lower the number of graduates and they can't get them without higher pay, they will stop. Two, you could put a price on the degree, e.g. higher minimum wage for positions requiring a degree to make employers pay for the extra education.

[–] Legianus@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So the higher minimum wage is already a thing in some countries (e.g. Germany, where degrees are also mostly free) and there is still the trend of many more ppl. studying.

In general, our world is getting more complicated and we live longer. So i dont really see the problem of more education?

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

More education is a balance of costs and benefits. There is no harm in even a supermarket cashier having a collage degree. God knows our democracies could use more educated voters. But in many professions, it is not worth the cost. The same knowledge could be gained by a few months of on the job training. If employers are really willing to pay more for those degrees like in Germany than that is fine. But I am pretty sure in some places, people are asking for degrees not because they are needed (worth the cost), but because people with degrees are available cheaply.

After all, if the degrees were worth their price to employers, and the employers paid for them adequately, student loans wouldn't be an issue.

[–] DeadMartyr@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago

I agree, but there is things we can move towards, but some are more... radical solutions.

I think the Swiss do something where after a certain point in the education pipeline (Age 16?) they decide either university or vocational school.

I think the ratio is 20-80.

If the decision is made for you (via being evaluated by the institutions in charge of the students) it definitely would be filled with bribes and scandals where the rich try to subvert it.

But if that wasn't a problem I think it would definitely help university degrees "matter" again and it would be more feasible to make free for those who pursue it.

Again this requires a whole restructuring-- and would not see results for atleast a generation-- and red-lining would potentially have very visible effects on this depending on how its done.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Trades are a good option, but how long before plumbing drones are crawling through the sewers?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

For me, I do kind of think that if someone paid and then forgiveness happened, they ought to be at least partially compensated if they have any history of being low income. They could have put their loan payments into something else but they didn't so they'd kind of end up screwed over by their slavishly responsible bill paying.

That said: its stupid to not want broad student loan forgiveness because the student loan crisis is literally damaging the economy. Its hurting everyone, even people who already paid their loans off.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Pretty much. It would be more broadly acceptable if it was like 'if you had student loans in the past decade you get a $5000 tax credit'. Maybe more if your reported income for the past 10 years was below a certain threshold.

That would benefit everyone, including those who paid off their loans and they could then tax that money from the tax credit and spend it elsewhere.

This type of thing was huge beneficial for child care too. The Child Care Tax Credits during the pandemic were a huge benefit and halved the child poverty rate. It's sheer stupidity they were cancelled.

[–] deaf_fish@midwest.social 4 points 6 days ago

Id be ok if there was some kind of reimbursement, but I wouldn't stop student loan reform from happening if it didn't include reimbursement.

[–] dmention7@midwest.social 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I like that idea. Phase in tax credits based on the student loans you have paid in the last X years, with higher weight given to more recent payments.

To be clear, even though I've just about finished paying mine off, I'd vote for full forgiveness in a heartbeat with or without that provision, but I think it would make it much more pallatable for a large chunk of the population.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (7 children)

I totally agree with this. If someone is opposed to student loan forgiveness because they had to pay theirs off, that person sucks. But if that person thinks maybe they should get a portion of their payments back too, and not as part of opposition, then I am sympathetic.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 16 points 6 days ago

if that person thinks maybe they should get a portion of their payments back too

I think every one of them assumes they will never get a cent of that money back. They do live in America, after all, the land of "fuck you; got mine."

Change the legislation to give every living person back every cent they ever paid towards student loans, and many opinions would change.

The Republican party would still be completely against it though, so we'd still have millions of boot lickers out there arguing to hurt their own financial situation in order to please their superiors.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LaterRedditor@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Do we all think loan forgiveness is the cure for student loans?

Not at all, but loan forgiveness wasn't mentioned in the comic. It's just putting a bandaid on a capitalized educational system that should not be for making money but rather a societal investment into our betterment. Id keep my loans I have left and vote for free education any day of the week if we had the option. (Of course I wouldn't say no to both) But I think some people were trying to use loan forgiveness to breach the doors of free education.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Dude.

Fuck cancer, AND fuck people that have that logic about school loans or anything else.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago

Plot twist, he actually beat up every single kid in the paediatric cancer ward at his local hospital.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 8 points 6 days ago

"If they cure cancer after I beat the shit out of it, I'll have to beat it up again and possibly kill it this time. Who the fuck cured the twat of the injuries I gave him anyway? I thought we hated cancer?"

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I'm somewhat torn on this:

Yes, I totally agree that federal loans should be forgiven even if someone pays theirs off.

Private loans though? Not so much. That's basically the same as a mortgage from a bank. Or a car loan even. That money ultimately ends up in the borrower's possession after the school balance is paid. That? I am not so willing to share the cost of.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Debt itself has a history of forgiveness. Western Societies could benefit from being more forgiving imo. 30% apr loans should absolutely be illegal, but thats a lot of credit debt today.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] reptar@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

I, somewhat, feel you. My hang up is federal loans are often s pittance

Maybe my FAFSA has the wrong code(at this point, for my oldest). Maybe I should have lied about my assets? I haven't done my research, but it did not seem like my lack of home or non-beater factor in

[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I mean I wouldn't want it to not exist but if I just nearly died of chemo + cancer I'd be a little mad if they found an EASIER way to cure cancer...

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 6 days ago

Cancer survivor here. Nothing would make me more happy to see a simple cure for what almost killed me, the sooner the better. Even if it was just after I finished chemo; perhaps even especially right after it to be honest. Remember that there's always the 5-year time where the danger of the cancer coming back is constantly lingering (especially during the first 12 months). Even if you just finished chemo, that new drug means you won't have to go through chemo again for that cancer no matter what happens from now on. Nothing, and I mean abso-fucking-lutely nothing, would've given me more peace of mind at that time.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

That would actually kind of be funny in retrospect. Like, if you survived it, and it was the most horrible, painful year of your life, and then the day the doctor gave you the all-clear, the FDA released a drug that takes care of it in seven days with minimum side effects.

Like any time anybody said anything to me, I would be whipping out my cancer photos and then using that to explain that the universe hates me, and so therefore I am absolved of all sin.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 6 days ago

I am once again reminded: Humanity is fucking ugly. I'm starting to get nihilists.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Yeah I don't think this covers the situation as much as it's a nice feel good story.

Imagine for a second you are relatively poor, you go to a state school or community college in order to afford it. You have loans, but they are small.

Now imagine you're upper middle class, you go to a private or out of state school and take loans out for a much much larger amount than the other person, with the expectation that you're getting more value for your money (let's ignore the labyrinth there for a second -- this is something many people believe and believing it, for some, makes it true).

Now, both loans are forgiven

Youve succeeded in making the rich richer, giving them both the higher valued education and all of their money back.

Or imagine you're that poor student but you're smart: you got a grant or scholarship making your loans nonexistent, but only if you go to the state school.

Once again, forgiving loans makes the already wealthy person significantly more wealthy and does nothing to benefit the poorer person.

Yes, of course, there's a wide range of reasons a person might go down either route, and I'm absolutely certain there are many millions of people who have gotten loans way above their wealth in order to go to a better school and jump out of poverty (or whatever). This comic ignores the nuance.

In the cancer analogy, this would be a poor person dying or otherwise experiencing terrible health problems because they couldn't get the care they needed, then when a cure is developed, only administering it to the people who could afford care to begin with (ie american health care)

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If this is a one-time event it's hardly the solution to the problem. Education should be free or close to free in general.

If that's the case, things suddenly look different. Even only if e.g. state schools are free.

In my country the tuition fee for a state university is around €30 per semester, and that doesn't even go to the university but to fund the student governing body (not sure what's the right translation for the term).

This means, that everyone can get a quality education even if they are poor. In fact, most people I went to university with funded their flat/student accomodation and food with a part-time job while going to university. No debts or financial assistance needed.

This doesn't cover private universities, but (a) the difference in quality and reputation isn't relevant and (b) free public universities means that private universities are also somewhat price capped if they want to stay competitive.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Of course, but that's never been a serious proposal in this country so I wasn't responding to it.

It's feasible to do this today in the US at some schools, but your parents have to really push you to get a lot of scholarships. It's not common.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

This is a great point. And yes, the system typically always rewards the rich far more than the poor.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

Read all the comments🧵. Nobody mentioned that higher education was free in the 🇺🇲 until a racist made it costly for colors to attend.

Changed the link, since folks had difficulty trickling to the sources.🥁

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

made it costly for colors to attend

Are you sure that's the right link? The Wikipedia page talks about a law that mandates a permit for carrying firearms.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I admit I kinda feel this way about Ozempic after having to fight for years to finally get into better shape.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Thing is once they stop the pounds come back unless they change their behavior. If all they do is take the shots, they're likely signing up for an expensive long-term roller-coaster of weight loss and gain and emotions.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago

Behavioural change is the crucial part of getting in shape, Ozempic is helpful for those who already did change their behaviour but still can't lose weight. Your fight is never wasted, you're significantly more healthy and fitter than those solely rely on Ozempic and never do the work, and that should be worth it.

load more comments
view more: next ›