alt Hacker News> For individuals, this access to education promised more money, more status or both. But for governments, it also offered political stability — a way to convince people to buy into society as currently structured, by promising the potential for advancement to the underprivileged without ousting those who had wealth and power already.
were they trying to sell the promise that two objects can occupy the same space at the same time? XD
starting to realize that the more a government has to incentivize you to do something (govt loan for school, govt assistance for mortgage, govt subsidies for cars), the worse the thing is for the individual (and by extension society as a whole) in the end, with the actual long-term benefit seeming to go to an entrenched party (executives, landlords, automakers, respectively).
a good tell is that they did not already have a compelling argument to get you started on their thing, before offering the "help"
Replies
The economy is clearly not zero sum. More educated workers are broadly speaking more productive. More productivity means more of everything to go around, with a few exceptions.
Mortgages and loans for school are good things: they make two of the biggest predictors of lifetime wealth available to a broader part of the populace. If people are stupid and overextend on a house or underwater basket weaving degree, that’s on them.
This argument is directionally equivalent to claiming that your parents making you do chores or contribute to the household is bad for you.
The reality is that college educated workers still make considerably more money, with less physical wear and tear.
The government is offering that support because was an incredibly effective lever to up skill the populace, and because people wanted it.
That may change, but at least for now it's still mostly true. Even if we both agree that the system as structured isn't ideal and can end up abusive in some forms.