this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
193 points (97.5% liked)

Work Reform

9833 readers
721 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] astanix@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wage garnishment will prevent most people from following through its my guess.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

So don’t pay and make them work for it.

With the labor shortage right now it would be expensive for loan collectors to hire enough workers to track down and force payments if people stop paying on a large scale.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Can't get blood from a stone. Mass Garnishment will just result in crime and tax evasion. If defaults happens on a large enough scale it'll be impossible and political/economic suicide.

[–] TheHottub@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I live paycheck to paycheck on 150k/year. Every time I made more, more was needed for rent, medical, car maintenance, lemon cars breaking down, gas, 3 kids food... Right on the perfect path where every time I needed something I was in the perfect position to be fucked by high interest rates and not being able to make sound financial decisions before hand. Because I never started with money. I get so angry when people tell me "but you make good money." But I have tons of debt from living on the edge for decades. I do absolutely nothing because I have no money left over at the end of each paycheck.

No idea where $610/month is going to come from. So again, yes I make "good money" but the path to get here has taken it all and is still taking. And I most certainly will not be able to pay. And I'm certain it stress me out, possiblity destroy what little credit I have left so I can continue to fucked further in the future with little to no opportunity to save or get ahead.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

3 kids

Once of these things is wildly more expensive and entirely optional compared to the rest.

[–] TheHottub@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Life finds a way. Do you want me to explain deeper into how a married man and woman living together end up making babies? To be fair. Our third was an accident and it was a hard decision to go through with it. Also, with each child a momentary boost or good news was had monetarily that would soon become moot.

And if starting out wealthy is all you seem to think should drive humans having children, consider how many people have fallen into poverty or are living paycheck to paycheck that would have otherwise not had children. The economy would collapse.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

That statement is a criticism of the economy, not a justification for having kids anyways. It’s literally one of the main driving forces behind falling fertility rates.

Of course, we’re apparently going to try the handmaid’s tale before we ever consider that maybe making life easier and better for parents and children alike is the solution. Until that conservative wet dream happens, vasectomies are cheap, reliable if you can follow simple instructions, and not easily taken away by the party of “small government”

[–] Igotz80HDnImWinning@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Holders of Student Loan Asset Backet Securities and a series of credit default swaps are gonna fight back hard. Hold the line. If bribing a senator is free speech shouldn’t Citizens United also protect borrowers witholding their “speech” to communicate their condemnation of a policy?

[–] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Anyone signing up for the new SAVE income driven repayment plan?

Apparently if you're making anything under $32,800, your payments can still be paused. (The number is higher if you have kids to feed)

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm glad to hear that's in place. It's almost literally the least we could do. It's wild that we needed a law for that.

I would be surprised if there's many people in the US earning under $32.8k and successfully making every loan payment, anyway.

Seems like the program just acknowledges what ought to happen anyway.

[–] Crisps@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You should pay these back, because they’ll take it in less convenient ways. However I view these loans as predatory because they are marketed to children. You may have just turned 18 when you signed, but you were certainly under 18 when the decision to take the loan was really made.