Sanders' Proposal to Eliminate to Forgive Student Loan Debt

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
4.5? That's free money
In the early 2000s, medical school graduates were consolidating their debt with a 2-3% interest rate without issues. That went away around 2006 or 2007.

You can consolidate with a private company in the 4% range today too, depending on a lot of different factors.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
What about people who made sacrifices instead of taking out loans? "Sorry you struggled to work to put yourself through college and now someone who went on a luxury vacation to a private east coast school is even better off than you." He's absolutely vile.

Cap interest, sure, maybe create a path to bankruptcy when it really doesn't work out for someone.

But erasing all debt and putting it on the shoulders of more responsible people? I can't even fathom that. Ideally college just needs to be trimmed down. Gen ed requirements that rehash high school account for so much of degree requirements...

Whose shoulders are you talking about exactly? Senator Sanders is proposing a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The issue of high student loan debt influencing specialty choice and how this ties into the US doctor shortage is being looked at very closely by physician organizations. The AAMC issued an updated report last April which estimated that there will be a shortage of approximately 122,000 physicians by 2032, encompassing around 55,000 primary care physicians, 12,000 medical specialists, 13,000 surgical specialists, and 40,000 other specialists (such as pathologists, neurologists, radiologists, and psychiatrists.)

This data highlights the need to understand what factors contribute to specialty choice, something that several studies have reported on. One study examining data from the AAMC's Medical School Graduation Questionnaire found an inverse relationship between debt levels and intention to enter primary care. This trend was strongest for students who owed more that $150,000. This study also pointed out that factors such as gender and race strongly influenced specialty, indicating that several factors are contributing to graduating medical students choices.

Another study published in 2014, A Retrospective Analysis of the Relationship Between Medical Student Debt and Primary Care Practice in the United States, supports this idea that the reasoning behind students choice of medical specialty is multi factorial. Researchers found that debt levels as well as public vs private schooling and socioeconomic status influenced specialty choice. For graduates of public med schools, researchers found an inverse relationship between debt levels and intention to practice primary care. For all graduates overall, they found that students with little to no debt, as well as students with very high debt, were less likely to chose primary care. They propose a few possible explanations for these findings:

" We believe that 2 important relationships contribute to this curve (Figure 3). First, graduates with little or no debt may be less likely to choose primary care because they often come from wealthier families (ie, a socioeconomic status effect). The socioeconomic status of a students’ family of origin strongly predicts their educational debt.8,12,18,19 High socioeconomic status also predicts specialization.8,17,19 The reasons for this association remain relatively unexplored but may be related to higher income expectations among students from wealthier families. Second, public school graduates with very high debt may be less likely to choose primary care because they perceive a need for the higher financial return of specialization to finance their debt (ie, a deterrent effect).7 "

One study that analyzed responses from an AACOM survey of pending Osteopathic medical school graduates found that for graduates with high debt burden, students who used loan forgiveness/repayment programs had higher rates of entering primary care fields, while high debt students who did not utilize these programs were were more likely to enter non–primary care specialty fields, with this trend increasing as mean medical school debt increased.

The connection between student loan debt burden and the need for more primary care physicians appears to be one of the main motivations behind some medical schools moving towards tuition free med school. In their press release from August 2018, NYU spoke to this topic:

"Overwhelming student debt is fundamentally reshaping the medical profession in ways that are adversely affecting healthcare. Saddled with staggering student loans, many medical school graduates choose higher-paying specialties, drawing talent away from less lucrative fields like primary care, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology...“Tuition-free medical education goes beyond the merit and financial scholarships, and debt cancellations that other academic centers have traditionally favored,” says Rafael Rivera, MD, MBA, associate dean for admissions and financial aid. “More importantly, it addresses both physician shortages and diversity.”

Quite recently, physician organizations have been bringing this issue to the attention of Congress, in asking for more financial support for medical school graduates entering primary care fields. On June 12th, the U.S. House Committee on Small Business held a hearing entitled "The Doctor Is Out. Rising Student Loan Debt and the Decline of the Small Medical Practice." Here, a representative from the American College of Physicians spoke about how the ACP acknowledges that the burden of student debt can deter students from entering primary care, and they advocated for increased funding for scholarships and loan repayment programs for primary care physicians. In a written testimony submitted to this hearing, the American Academy of Family Physicians also voiced their support for such legislation that would support the education of primary care physicians.

While it's clear that student loan debt is not the only factor contributing to a shortage of primary care physicians, it does appear to be playing a tangible role that has raised concerns from medical schools and physician organizations alike. Promising research on the benefits of student loan forgiveness/repayment programs will hopefully continue to address the increasing demand for more physicians in general.

See below post.
All of that is completely ignoring his point.

The proportion of US students going into any given specialty has f--- all to do with the actual # of people going into the specialty. After the match/SOAP, more or less 100% of all residency programs in the US fill. The remaining couple hundred spots unmatched nationwide are almost all undesignated prelims and are a rounding error at best.

What does that mean? That means the primary determinant factor in the number of PCPs being trained is the number of residency spots in the specialties. Period. All that reshuffling debt and other motivations does is change the demographics of who is filling those spots - if there's less US grads applying for FM and they want to do EM instead, that just means more foreign grads will match FM.

So you could make zero debt a universal thing and it won't change the supply of PCPs one iota. The only thing that could increase the # of PCPs is increasing the number of PCP residency slots. Which has nothing to do with debt.

The only exception there is for choice of subspecialization vs hospitalist vs PCP work within internal medicine and pediatrics. But people subspecialize within IM for reasons that have nothing to do with debt, and even then the primary factor is the physical # of spots in different specialties vs the total # of internists graduating each year.

This.
Good point. In terms of what AnatomyGrey12's point was, I couldn't gather much from "Food for thought, you are completely wrong" other than the fact that he was disagreeing with me.

Well and then I clarified that I was talking about the debt and US students going more for specialties.
However if loan forgiveness/repayment plans/financial support actually did increase the number of graduates who are trying to match into primary care residencies, don't you think the supply of residency slots would increase over time to meet this increased demand?

What? No. If this were the case there should be a huge amount of derm residencies right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Whose shoulders are you talking about exactly? Senator Sanders is proposing a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds.

Person #1 works to put themselves through school. Or maybe, after graduation, really took a cut to their lifestyle to pay back loans. This person is all paid up somehow. No debts to forgive.

Person #2 takes out a huge loan to go to school. Has not repaid or has made a small effort. Sits carrying the loan with plans to vote for Bernie, get it all forgiven.

The end result is the person who made the choice to repay their debts is now worse off than someone who did not. Bernie will hand wave off Person #1 into "da rich!" as he always does. Student loans can trap ignorant people, sure, but why shouldn't I get free money too?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Person #1 works to put themselves through school. Or maybe, after graduation, really took a cut to their lifestyle to pay back loans. This person is all paid up somehow. No debts to forgive.

Person #2 takes out a huge loan to go to school. Has not repaid or has made a small effort. Sits carrying the loan with plans to vote for Bernie, get it all forgiven.

The end result is the person who made the choice to repay their debts is now worse off than someone who did not. Bernie will hand wave off Person #1 into "da rich!" as he always does. Student loans can trap ignorant people, sure, but why shouldn't I get free money too?
There’s huge variation in the CoA among schools. Not every degree program is lenient enough to realistically work and pay your way. I went to a cheap undergrad and lots of people worked but they did it to make extra cash and tie up loose ends. No one was really paying their way.

Besides, “it was hard for me so it should be hard for you” is garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Person #1 works to put themselves through school. Or maybe, after graduation, really took a cut to their lifestyle to pay back loans. This person is all paid up somehow. No debts to forgive.

Person #2 takes out a huge loan to go to school. Has not repaid or has made a small effort. Sits carrying the loan with plans to vote for Bernie, get it all forgiven.

The end result is the person who made the choice to repay their debts is now worse off than someone who did not. Bernie will hand wave off Person #1 into "da rich!" as he always does. Student loans can trap ignorant people, sure, but why shouldn't I get free money too?

Why is person #1 worse off in the end? You said person #1 and person #2 are now both equally debt free. It sounds like you just want more suffering in general. If person #1 suffered, than person #2 should have to suffer to? Also, why are you leaving out all the specifics of what happens if you just "chose" to not pay off a loan? Defaulted loans go into collections, destroys your credit, and can lead to wage garnishment and assets being seized. Like in what magical world is person #2 just "sitting carrying" this huge student loan twiddling their thumbs sipping iced tea?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Why is person #1 worse off in the end? You said person #1 and person #2 are now both equally debt free. It sounds like you just want more suffering in general. If person #1 suffered, than person #2 should have to suffer to? Also, why are you leaving out all the specifics of what happens if you just "chose" to not pay off a loan? Defaulted loans go into collections, destroys your credit, and can lead to wage garnishment and assets being seized. Like in what magical world is person #2 just "sitting carrying" this huge student loan twiddling their thumbs sipping iced tea?
Person 1: Because they took a decent QOL hit to pay off the loans early.
Person 2: I think what he/she meant is that they paid the minimum possible and so got the maximum they could repaid.

And its not about person 2 also suffering. Its about person 1 being responsible and essentially being punished for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
There’s huge variation in the CoA among schools. Not every degree program is lenient enough to realistically work and pay your way. I went to a cheap undergrad and lots of people worked but they did it to make extra cash and tie up loose ends. No one was really paying their way.
Duh, hence the bold part...

Person #1 works to put themselves through school. Or maybe, after graduation, really took a cut to their lifestyle to pay back loans. This person is all paid up somehow. No debts to forgive.

Person #2 takes out a huge loan to go to school. Has not repaid or has made a small effort. Sits carrying the loan with plans to vote for Bernie, get it all forgiven.

The end result is the person who made the choice to repay their debts is now worse off than someone who did not. Bernie will hand wave off Person #1 into "da rich!" as he always does. Student loans can trap ignorant people, sure, but why shouldn't I get free money too?
 
There’s huge variation in the CoA among schools. Not every degree program is lenient enough to realistically work and pay your way. I went to a cheap undergrad and lots of people worked but they did it to make extra cash and tie up loose ends. No one was really paying their way.

Besides, “it was hard for me so it should be hard for you” is garbage.
But “i am paying for my education, you should pay for yours” is not garbage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
But “i am paying for my education, you should pay for yours” is not garbage
No one should have to pay $60,000 for a four year degree.


Aaaaaand the wheels on the bus go ‘round and ‘round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Person 1: Because they took a decent QOL hit to pay off the loans early.
Person 2: I think what he/she meant is that they paid the minimum possible and so got the maximum they could repaid.

And its not about person 2 also suffering. Its about person 1 being responsible and essentially being punished for it.

Why are you giving Person 1 the benefit of the doubt but not person 2? What about the QOL hit person 2 will deal with by owing money on a "huge loan" for a significant chunk of their adult life (assuming they're going to keep making minimum payments). Can they only make minimum payments because they don't earn enough at work to pay any more than that? Can they afford to put any money into savings, or does all their disposable income go towards making their loan payments?

Also, I still don't see how Person 1 is being punished by Person 2 being helped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
No one should have to pay $60,000 for a four year degree.


Aaaaaand the wheels on the bus go ‘round and ‘round.
Then start a school and show us how it doesn’t cost that much, you’ll easily fill if you are cheap
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Most people who go into specialties don’t find primary care interesting. The inverse is also true. Income has less to do with it than many people think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We have enough reactionaries who think there’s such thing as a useless degree

Right, because every degree is useful.
nd as a nation we’re much too interested in waging endless war and protecting the material conditions of millionaires and billionaires at all costs.

:rolleyes:
No one should have to pay $60,000 for a four year degree.

This is why there are useless degrees..... If you won't be able to pay off the debt from the loan you used to GET the degree, then don't get that degree. Get a different one. Hell, go to technical school and be a plumber, they make much better money than a lot of degrees.

God this kind of thing is mind blowing.

Lol, it's a good business idea. You should go do it.
 
I love it. The top 1% owns 40% of the wealth in this nation, yet we reserve our anger and resentment for the hypothetical art major who had their loans forgiven. Yeah, that makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
I love it. The top 1% owns 40% of the wealth in this nation, yet we reserve our anger and resentment for the hypothetical art major who had their loans forgiven. Yeah, that makes sense.
If you didn’t steal it you should be able to have all the money you earned without regard to someone else, there is no problem with income/wealth inequality
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I kinda hope this passes because from what I understand, Bernie if he became president could essentially clear the public debt without Congress, but to pass the transaction tax he would need Congress. Obviously he probably wont get 60 senators on that. So we would have a scenario where Bernie either has to give up or says "**** it" and clears the debt anyway. And the man is a straight savage, so we all know what he would do. And that scenario is funny to me for some reason.

FTR, I think the compromise solution to the short term student debt problem(aka people who have debt currently not future students) is to just remove the tax bomb from the 20 year IBR program. Everyone pays a reasonable percentage of their income, and nobody is financially ruined for trying to get an education. Even the staunch leftist in me kinda opposes Bernie's plan and Warren's plan to a lesser extent. Student debtors are like 20% of the country, and as a whole are far from the worst off financially. There are a lot of other groups that need the help more imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is why there are useless degrees..... If you won't be able to pay off the debt from the loan you used to GET the degree, then don't get that degree. Get a different one. Hell, go to technical school and be a plumber, they make much better money than a lot of degrees.
You seem to believe the entire point of getting an education is to produce capital and if it doesn’t, then it’s useless. We need dancers and art historians too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
If you didn’t steal it you should be able to have all the money you earned without regard to someone else, there is no problem with income/wealth inequality

I can list dozens of ways that donors, corporate interests, and lobbyist groups have spent the better part of the past 50 years influencing tax and economic policy to benefit their own financial interests, increase their wealth, and hurt middle/lower income earners, and non of them involve stealing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
If you didn’t steal it you should be able to have all the money you earned without regard to someone else, there is no problem with income/wealth inequality
A billionaire did not earn anything.
 
You seem to believe the entire point of getting an education is to produce capital and if it doesn’t, then it’s useless. We need dancers and art historians too.
A Bachelors degree still gives you tons of human capital.

The average person with a bachelors - any random bachelors - earns approximately $1,000,000 more over their lifetime than a typical high school graduate. The average student loan debt from a bachelors is ~$30k (the average overall is higher but includes graduate degrees). Yeah, it sucks having debt - but in almost all cases, even with an art history major, it's worth it.

Bailing out the people with student debt is bailing out those with the higher earning potential in the US. In fact, the higher the student debt, the more likely the person is to be

A) Very wealthy (with regards to human capital at least) - just look at the physicians, dentists, lawyers

or

B) Irresponsible (took out full loans for a private university including full COA)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
You seem to believe the entire point of getting an education is to produce capital and if it doesn’t, then it’s useless. We need dancers and art historians too.
but if that dancer wants a $60k training certificate he/she needs to find their own $60k. Not my problem
I can list dozens of ways that donors, corporate interests, and lobbyist groups have spent the better part of the past 50 years influencing tax and economic policy to benefit their own financial interests, increase their wealth, and hurt middle/lower income earners, and non of them involve stealing.
i’m all for going to a straight tax with no exemptions and one simple rate if you want....solved
A billionaire did not earn anything.
Some actually did earn things, or their parents that earned it gave it to them. Neither of those situations mean I get to seize it from them
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
but if that dancer wants a $60k training certificate he/she needs to find their own $60k. Not my problem
i’m all for going to a straight tax with no exemptions and one simple rate if you want....solved

Some actually did earn things, or their parents that earned it gave it to them. Neither of those situations mean I get to seize it from them
What does it matter to you what they majored in? You don’t want to provide assistance to people getting engineering or teaching degrees either.

There is a solid historical precedent for taking money away from rich people.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What does it matter to you what they majored in? You don’t want to provide assistance to people bidding engineering or teaching degrees either.

There is a solid historical precedent for taking money away from rich people.
You’re right, whatever education they want (and it’s cost) is their problem to figure out. Their neighbor shouldn’t see a bill

If by historical precedent, you mean, “we’ve done this horrible crap before” then yes....precedent. But that’s not a justification
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You’re right, whatever education they want (and it’s cost) is their problem to figure out. Their neighbor shouldn’t see a bill

If by historical precedent, you mean, “we’ve done this horrible crap before” then yes....precedent. But that’s not a justification
Seizing power and resources from the shrinkingly small proportion of the population that holds near unilateral control over it is not “horrible crap“, and given that corporations are leading contributors to climate change and environmental destabilization, the justification is becoming more and more clear.
 
Some actually did earn things, or their parents that earned it gave it to them. Neither of those situations mean I get to seize it from them

It's not "seizing", it's called taxes. Sounds like you're just anti taxes.

"Listen, you got a chance to build a great fortune, and good for you—or inherit a great fortune, O.K., it’s O.K. You got a chance to do that. Good for you. But, remember, you built that fortune in America, where the rest of us helped pay for the education of all your employees, where the rest of us helped pay for the roads and the bridges so you could get your goods to market, where the rest of us helped pay for the police and the firefighters who were there to keep you safe. We were all glad to pay. We understand that’s how America works. But, when you build one of those great fortunes, just take a little and pitch it back in the kitty . . . so every kid gets a chance in this country.”

- Elizabeth Warren
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
If you didn’t steal it you should be able to have all the money you earned without regard to someone else, there is no problem with income/wealth inequality

Jeff Bezos is worth $150 billion, much of that profit coming from the exploitation of underpaid, overworked warehouse workers. I don't personally believe that he did anything special to "earn" that money in terms of working harder than those factory workers. He certainly didn't work 1.5 million times as hard as those factory workers (based on a median household net worth of $97,000 in the US).

Personally, I believe a more equitable system would lead to more happiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Seizing power and resources from the shrinkingly small proportion of the population that holds near unilateral control over it is not “horrible crap“, and given that corporations are leading contributors to climate change and environmental destabilization, the justification is becoming more and more clear.
oh dear, you’re going to hang your hat on climate change? I thought we were having a real discussion
It's not "seizing", it's called taxes. Sounds like you're just anti taxes.

"Listen, you got a chance to build a great fortune, and good for you—or inherit a great fortune, O.K., it’s O.K. You got a chance to do that. Good for you. But, remember, you built that fortune in America, where the rest of us helped pay for the education of all your employees, where the rest of us helped pay for the roads and the bridges so you could get your goods to market, where the rest of us helped pay for the police and the firefighters who were there to keep you safe. We were all glad to pay. We understand that’s how America works. But, when you build one of those great fortunes, just take a little and pitch it back in the kitty . . . so every kid gets a chance in this country.”

- Elizabeth Warren
I’m aware of her atrocious understanding of economics
Jeff Bezos is worth $150 billion, much of that profit coming from the exploitation of underpaid, overworked warehouse workers. I don't personally believe that he did anything special to "earn" that money in terms of working harder than those factory workers. He certainly didn't work 1.5 million times as hard as those factory workers (based on a median household net worth of $97,000 in the US).

Personally, I believe a more equitable system would lead to more happiness.
I was under the impression that all those workers showed up voluntarily, if you can show they were somehow there against their will I’m all for jailing the perpetrators

The great thing about capitalism is if you find bezos to morally objectionable you don’t shop on amazon. You however become the bad actor if you just take his stuff because you don’t like him
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
oh dear, you’re going to hang your hat on climate change? I thought we were having a real discussion
I’m aware of her atrocious understanding of economics

I was under the impression that all those workers showed up voluntarily, if you can show they were somehow there against their will I’m all for jailing the perpetrators

The great thing about capitalism is if you find bezos to morally objectionable you don’t shop on amazon. You however become the bad actor if you just take his stuff because you don’t like him
You don’t believe that climate change is an issue? Are you not scientifically literate?

If you care to really understand anything about political history you would have exposed yourself to labor activism at some point. Work is voluntary in so much is you can decide to work or not to work but when you have mouths to feed, bills to pay and a life to sustain there really is no other option and for a huge proportion of people they take what they can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
College is not too expensive. Community and city college is affordable. The private liberal arts colleg you WANT to go to IS too expensive. When the Democrats and Pres Obama took over the student loan business, it was to make college and grad school more affordable. When my son applied to med school, I could borrow money at 3.5 %. When the school financial officer told me the govt rate was 7 to 8 %, I nearly reached across.the table and grabbed him by the tie!. I have no interest in paying for someone who went to a liberal arts school, who is 250k in debt for an Art therapy degree paying 28k a year. Where were the parents? Cant anyone do math?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I was under the impression that all those workers showed up voluntarily, if you can show they were somehow there against their will I’m all for jailing the perpetrators

This is the real meat of the disagreement. Just because there is not a gun to one's head does not mean their decision was not coerced. Any transaction between a corporation valued at hundreds of billions and an individual is going to be inherently skewed because of the massive power differential. Do you seriously not see at all where these ideas are coming from? I understand you really hate the hand of government interfering in private lives, but I do not understand how easily you dismiss the same level of interference from immensely powerful private entities.

My take on Bernie's proposal is that 1.6 trillion could be put to much much better use than bailing out college educated citizens who likely are not struggling as much as those without the same educational credentials. Better in my opinion would be to just cap interest at or slightly above inflation and forgive all interest beyond that number for all existing student loans. Even better and more important is to get the price of college under control, whether by making state schools free/super cheap (hopefully pushing private school costs down via competition) or other external economic policy measures that would affect all (public & private) schools. This is all really premature discussion, anyway -- it should be obvious to everybody that this policy as written would never make it through Congress. But IF he gets elected, whatever mangled version of this policy makes it through will likely still go a long way to removing the massive economic burden our generation is facing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
This is the real meat of the disagreement. Just because there is not a gun to one's head does not mean their decision was not coerced. Any transaction between a corporation valued at hundreds of billions and an individual is going to be inherently skewed because of the massive power differential. Do you seriously not see at all where these ideas are coming from? I understand you really hate the hand of government interfering in private lives, but I do not understand how easily you dismiss the same level of interference from immensely powerful private entities.

My take on Bernie's proposal is that 1.6 trillion could be put to much much better use than bailing out college educated citizens who likely are not struggling as much as those without the same educational credentials. Better in my opinion would be to just cap interest at or slightly above inflation and forgive all interest beyond that number for all existing student loans. Even better and more important is to get the price of college under control, whether by making state schools free/super cheap (hopefully pushing private school costs down via competition) or other external economic policy measures that would affect all (public & private) schools. This is all really premature discussion, anyway -- it should be obvious to everybody that this policy as written would never make it through Congress. But IF he gets elected, whatever mangled version of this policy makes it through will likely still go a long way to removing the massive economic burden our generation is facing.
Has it not occurred to you that the reason tuition keeps going up so much is the almost unlimited money students can get from the government?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Genuine question: Do you believe people have a right to profit off their intellectual labor? Take a book: does the person who physically put together a book deserve more income than the person who wrote it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Genuine question: Do you believe people have a right to profit off their intellectual labor? Take a book: does the person who physically put together a book deserve more income than the person who wrote it?
That’s an entirely different discussion compared to a person hoarding enormous amounts of wealth within a highly complex and sprawling international corporation.
 
That’s an entirely different discussion compared to a person hoarding enormous amounts of wealth within a highly complex and sprawling international corporation.

That he founded.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Seriously?

So the guy that revolutionized shopping (Bezos), home computing (Jobs and Gates), or how we interact with one another (Zuckerberg) didn't earn their money?

small correction. id say amazon web services has more to do with Amazon's success and growth rather than just online retail
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That’s an entirely different discussion compared to a person hoarding enormous amounts of wealth within a highly complex and sprawling international corporation.

Still, Bezos, for example, had a brilliant idea, worked tirelessly for decades, and helped make the world far more efficient. I think he deserves significant compensation (otherwise, he probably wouldn't have bothered to do what he did-- something billions of people benefit from). Regardless, I think we agree that significant redistribution of wealth will be needed very soon, especially as the technological ramp pushes many workers towards obsolescence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Still, Bezos, for example, had a brilliant idea, worked tirelessly for decades, and helped make the world far more efficient. I think he deserves significant compensation (otherwise, he probably wouldn't have bothered to do what he did-- something billions of people benefit from). Regardless, I think we agree that significant redistribution of wealth will be needed very soon, especially as the technological ramp pushes many workers towards obsolescence.
He didn’t do it alone, he was a single cog in a massive machine and he had enormous advantages getting to where he ended up. Without workers there would be no Amazon. And at this point it’s sustainability is far more reliant on them than it is on him yet he still reaps an astronomically out of proportion amount of the benefit.

Yeah, but that breaking point doesn’t necessarily have to come. It’s entirely possible that wealth inequality will worsen indefinitely.
 
Everybody is talking about the unequal distribution of wealth but nobody talks about unequal production of wealth.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Genuine question: Do you believe people have a right to profit off their intellectual labor? Take a book: does the person who physically put together a book deserve more income than the person who wrote it?

Still, Bezos, for example, had a brilliant idea, worked tirelessly for decades, and helped make the world far more efficient. I think he deserves significant compensation (otherwise, he probably wouldn't have bothered to do what he did-- something billions of people benefit from). Regardless, I think we agree that significant redistribution of wealth will be needed very soon, especially as the technological ramp pushes many workers towards obsolescence.

Yes, but there should be limits. Just by examining history, it should be clear that heightening wealth inequality leads to social unrest. This is to say nothing of the moral argument -- are we OK living in a world where 26 (!!) people have as many resources as the bottom 3.8 billion? Even taking 1% of that wealth and using it for education and healthcare would lift untold millions out of poverty. People deserve to be rewarded for their labor, but on a purely ethical level, I find it incredible that people so easily accept that one life is valued so much more than so many others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Yes, but there should be limits. Just by examining history, it should be clear that heightening wealth inequality leads to social unrest. This is to say nothing of the moral argument -- are we OK living in a world where 26 (!!) people have as many resources as the bottom 3.8 billion? Even taking 1% of that wealth and using it for education and healthcare would lift untold millions out of poverty. People deserve to be rewarded for their labor, but on a purely ethical level, I find it incredible that people so easily accept that one life is valued so much more than so many others.
Good post. I’d add that so many workers are not being rewarded for their labor (many people build things they themselves can’t afford) and have no interest in being millionaires but instead just want to live comfortably and securely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top