puntyyoke

It would make a difference to the people living there who are too poor to leave.

A few folks have mentioned that these charts

1. conflate liberal/conservative with the dominant left/right parties in these nations
2. does not include people who do not identify with one of those dominant parties
3. have some somewhat unreliable stats magic behind them

A lot of young men in the US are reporting themselves as “not a Democrat or Republican”, and that’s causing a lot of this proportional shift. I would bet that characterizes a lot of folks on this site who are not conservative.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women

https://www.allendowney.com/blog/2024/01/28/is-the-ideology-gap-growing/

While I endorse the change, I believe it’s being made to avoid arbitration being weaponized by class action plaintiffs, which can be more costly than a class action lawsuit

Eg: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/mass-arbitration-aaa-looks-to-reign-in-4534306/#:~:text=In one example%2C Uber was,at the outset of cases.

That’s an a-historical point of view. There have been several environmental catastrophes, including some causing massive climactic shifts introduced by prehistoric humans, some of them are documented in 1491, by Charles Mann. Poor farming practices, including some that have been practiced for thousands of years, are a huge factor in desertification. I completely agree that the rate and scale of environmental catastrophe is new, but the risk of it and tendency towards it is not. While I think capitalism is ABSOLUTELY the single greatest barrier to addressing the catastrophe, the scale and speed of that catastrophe could be just as easily tied to population growth as the emergence of capitalism.

Human caused environmental devastation didn’t start in the 1600s, capitalism did. I don’t think humans are a virus, but I don’t think that abolishing capitalism is the only critical step in preventing environmental catastrophe.

The federal government tracks all student loans, they know very explicitly how many people qualify.

If you’re making income based payments, and you have low income, the debt grows over time because the payments aren’t even enough to cover interest on the debt.

2.5 million people qualified for this plan, one of 5 that were put in place.

The plan was largely targeting dropouts, because they tend to be most trapped by loans. They don’t get any income benefit from a college degree, and tend to have lower paying jobs. If you’re doing income based repayment at minimum wage, it’s possible for your loan principle to grow continuously.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it definitely would have helped people.