this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
26 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58692 readers
3937 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has since moved on to greener and perhaps more dangerous pastures, told an audience of Stanford students recently that “Google decided that work-life balance and going home early and working from home was more important than winning.” Evidently this hot take was not for wider consumption, as Stanford — which posted the video this week on YouTube — today made the video of the event private.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] paf0@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not all loans were predatory, some people just made dumb choices all on their own. If anything there should be a reasonable limit on the interest rates and the loans should be refinanced.

And, as for why not both, we actually can't afford either. Investing for the future is a better deal for society than fixing people's personal mistakes.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What do you mean we can't afford either? Are you telling me that somehow all other developed countries are able to afford free or cheap higher education but somehow the US cannot? We could also slowly start to cancel current student debt. Sure, it is at $1.77 trillion right now but that does not have to be wiped away all at once. Prioritize getting rid of predatory loans, then those those with financial hardship, then go from there.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yes, we can't afford it, because we chose to spend all of our money on the military.

[–] wavebeam@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This sounds like we could afford it, we just need to take that money back from the military…

[–] paf0@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Yes, but also, America. It's not that I don't want these things, I just think they're politically impossible.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We could switch to Medicare for All and save a couple hundred billion a year to do it.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Overall, not without raising taxes though. The money just doesn't stop getting spent by people and appear in the government budget without it.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If your "taxes" go up by $7 but your health insurance costs go down by $10, why the hell would you care? There are several more dollars in your pocket. Or if you are concerned about tax amount, let's rename current health insurance fees to taxes and we can simply market Medicare for All as a massive tax cut that increases service.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Where does that math come from? I can't think of anything that got more efficient just because the government got involved.

I love the idea of Medicare For All but it should be a choice for people who want it.