My theory: not only your points, but also, it’s Because it will one day affect inheritance… when a parent dies and has this debt, their assets will cover it, the medical debt and credit debt… with school loans on top of the pay back, the inheritance amount will be way lower, keeping the cycle of people staying poor and desperate… to keep low income people, low income…
parents from the 70-90s who bought houses also had school debt and when they die, and leave the house, their assets will first go to their medical debt, school loans, and other debts they had. Why? To keep the cycle of low income people which no chance of owning a home, desperate, poor and in a perpetual cycle.
Man, that’s even more depressing. I will never understand why (mostly conservative) governments try to keep people down like this. I thought the human experiment was about lifting people up out of poverty and misery, not invent arbitrary systems that keep them there. What does society stand to gain from creating effectively a class of outcasts at the bottom of the social ladder?
Cheap labor to further enrich the upper class.
If they are merely surviving then they wont have the resources to fight it.
But at some point the upper class depends on more than just cheap labor. You need educated people to innovate, you need a well-paid middle class to support a consumption economy. If everyone is uneducated and destitute the whole house of cards upon which the upper class is able to exist will collapse.
I just don’t understand how the concept of “a rising tide lifts all boats” is so lost on some policy makers.
