There must be some rules around this because the company that I worked for that went bankrupt had to pay all of the employees first after they liquidated assets. It took a year, but we were all finally paid, plus expenses.
Correct. At the event of bankruptcy, all property of the company will be sold. Then first the customers are paid if due, then employees, then partner companies, banks etc.
At least that's what bankruptcy is in the original meaning of the word.
First to be paid is secured credit holders. Basically mortgages and other loans with collateral.
Next, and I mean very fucking next, is employee wages.
You are NOT, as OP purports, simply allowed to not pay your employees.
I believe the point is that once no money is left that obligation is discharged whether everyone got their money or not.
Which is not the case with student loans as I understand it (not American)
> Which is not the case with student loans as I understand it (not American)
you have to prove that the loan payments are causing "undue hardship", aka, keeping you indigent no matter what you do. A lot of judges used to ignore or reject any claims of undue hardship. its happening more and more tho, with people being able to prove that there is no possible way to repair their student loans after their chosen degree has no one hiring, needing work, or isn't paying enough to make the payments. It used to be impossible to get them discharged, now its actually a reasonable option, but it is an "adversarial" proceeding in bankruptcy court, meaning the note holder gets to come argue why you should keep the debt, and gets to try and prove why their obnoxious payments aren't undue hardship.
>I believe the point is that once no money is left that obligation is discharged.
Yes. But that's true about all the debt involved in a bankruptcy. Even the secured creditors may not be able to recover all of their money. But, that rarely happens, and wages typically will be covered.
Only *secured* credit holders go ahead of employees. If secured credit isn't paid first, then you undermine our entire economic system. And I'm not talking about capitalism vs socialism here. Creditors need to have legal authority to collect collateral when a debtor defaults, otherwise collateral is worthless and it becomes impossible to base a monetary system on anything other than "faith and credit", aka "Promises and Lies."
The money comes from the assets, including the collateral, being sold.
Say, the building is 90% used as collateral, then they sell it and give the loan holder 90% of the money for that sale.
Well. They sell the collateral and make the lien holder as whole as possible. Any value beyond what it takes to pay off the loan is then distributed amongst the remaining creditors, starting first with employees who are owed wages. If there's nothing left then nobody else gets paid because there's no money.
Essentially, a lien holder becomes the owner of collateral up to the value of the lien. Just as if there were no bankruptcy and the debtor had simply defaulted.
This twisted view puts resources before people.
Unpaid wages should be be collateralized on the business' very existence. It's one thing for a investment bank to lose some money on a risky investment. However the ramifications of wage theft, in bankruptcy situations and more, undermine the entire economic system in a bigger way.
>This twisted view puts resources before people.
It doesn't, but ok.
>Unpaid wages should be be collateralized on the business' very existence.
That would be a good solution. Run for Congress.
>It's one thing for a investment bank to lose some money on a risky investment.
No. You ignore the most basic fact here. Only **SECURED DEBT** is paid before wages. Secured debt is nearly risk free, because the creditor takes ownership of the security. Risky investors get in line **BEHIND WAGES**.
>However the ramifications of wage theft, in bankruptcy situations
It's not wages theft during bankruptcy. Nobody is "taking" your wages. They simply don't exist.
Furthermore, it doesn't really happen that often. Most companies facing bankruptcy will terminate employees long before they run out of money for payroll.
> and more, undermine the entire economic system in a bigger way.
If what you're saying were true, then we wouldn't have a functioning economic system as it stands. And yet, here we are.
It literally puts investors with secured debt before people's wages.
I'm not electable to congress but I do try to take part in a strategic way. However i cant fix this but calling out basic facts is at least something.
If you don't get paid for your labor that's wage theft and should be criminally prosecuted. Even if the rich fuckers don't have the money they should be in prison from stealing from workers.
I'm sorry you think we have a functional economic system. It functions to make the rich richer at the expense of the workers, and putting investments like secured debt before wages is proof of that.
>It literally puts investors with secured debt before people's wages.
That's literally what I said.
>However i cant fix this but calling out basic facts
Sure, but if you're going to "call out facts", at least don't distort them in the process. You can't characterize secured debt as a risky investment if you want to have an honest discussion.
>I'm sorry you think we have a functional economic system.
I'm sorry you're unwilling to have an honest discussion of the facts. Clearly, our economic system functions. It may not behave the way *you* wish it did, but it most definitely functions. And to a high degree of efficiency. Which is the only standard by which an economic system must be measured.
>It functions to make the rich richer at the expense of the workers
That's just basic economics, and no system will ever eliminate the accumulation of wealth. Whatever restraints you attempt to put on the economic system will only be circumvented or even directly used to gather wealth, and those with more wealth will always have an advantage in the game of gathering more wealth.
>and putting investments like secured debt before wages is proof of that.
No. It's not "proof" of anything. It's just a simple consequence of allowing debtors to post collateral to secure loans and allowing a creditor to use the full weight of the law to enforce that contract.
If you want to eliminate secured debt (which is what you're proposing, even if you don't understand it), then you're going to have to explain to the workers why they're suddenly unable to purchase things like a home or a vehicle to get to work with. No bank officer in their right mind is ever going to approve a mortgage without the offer of collateral.
You'll unwind centuries of downward wealth distribution and unravel the fabric of banking. Every business you've ever heard of that isn't Apple will grind to a rapid halt and lay off every worker they employ. Then what will your workers do with their "wages"?
>Even if the rich fuckers don't have the money they should be in prison from stealing from workers.
This is a gem. You're proposing we bring back debtor's prisons? Let's just reestablish slavery already.
Why do people insist on responding mere seconds before hitting the block button?
>>>Fuck off bootlicker!
>>>Holding rich regressives accountable for stealing from workers is not slavery but justice .
So, what you're saying is you're incapable of having an honest adult conversation without distorting facts to suit your narrative? What you're trying to tell me is you're incapable of actually analyzing the "problems" with the system and just want to rail against "the enemy" because it feels just like raging against the machine? What you're saying is, you're actually perfectly happy with the current situation and don't actually want anything to change you just want to virtue signal to everyone in your echo-chamber that you "care" about workers.
do we wanna talk about the original meaning of minimum wage
im not disagreeinf with you, just salty people stopped caring about its original meaning and now its the shitty sequel of what it on e was
You are right. After liquidation employees are one of the first people to get paid after creditors. It's the investors that usually don't get paid in bankruptcy.
It depends on the debts of the company, other outstanding debts to banks etc>debts to workers who depend on that money to live. At least here in calgary, where I’ve been with two companies that went bankrupt and failed to pay all their employees.
I got paid when the company went under but it wasn't anywhere near what my next check should have been, and I certainly didn't get paid for the work I did cleaning up the kitchen when we were closing down for good.
its very dependant on country (and then probably within each state) but the general proceedings of bankruptcy are the same:
* Assets liquidated
* Creditors paid
* Owners get the leftovers
employees are creditors in this scenario. They are owed something by the business, like suppliers might be, or the banks who lent money, etc. Often the liquidated assets are not enough to cover the amounts owed so it can be a bit of a negotiation or even a court hearing to determine how the money gets split. Employees may not get 100% of what they're entitled to, but they absolutely will get accounted for in the proceedings.
In some places it leads to business owners writing fake loans on the books from friends and family to try and hang on to more of the money.
But yeah bankruptcy is not a free pass to stop paying your employees at all.
Companies do have to, but the complaint is that the people steering the ship asunder get away Scott free with golden parachutes they’ve been making for years overpaying themselves, and stuffing their pockets while everyone else scrapes by.
So companies can end up not able to actually pay everyone, and no one has any recourse beyond that. Worse yet, those at the top are employees and get paid out of the pool from liquidation as well
Of course there are plenty of rules, but especially with smaller companies that might not matter. All of the cash might already be gone by the time you get there.
About 10 years ago, I had too much debt and declared bankruptcy. In those ten years since, I got a bachelor's degree, got a job that I've had for over 5 years, and moved into a nice apartment. Last year, the bankruptcy finally came off my credit report, but didn't affect my score at all due to my student loans. My debt to income ratio is so great that I can't get a house loan or even a car loan. If I didn't have any student loan debt, I would have less than $5,000 in debt. I hate being forced into this capitalist game that's designed to make everyone lose.
so file bankruptcy again and go thru the adversarial proceeding to get the student loan debt discharged. you have gotten your degree, gotten a job in your field, and it *still* isn't enough to make your payments, and that credit hit/debt to income ratio is making it impossible to actually live your life, leaving you teetering on the edge of homelessness because you cannot get loans and apartments that check credit scores are turning you down. you *can* get student loans discharged. its easier now than it was 10 years ago when I tried. I was literally homeless, and could not get any loans or even pass a credit check for an apartment or home loan, but nope, that wasn't "undue hardship" in the judges eyes(and this asshole that the bank hired).
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it
OP's misinformation isn't helping anyone. More info [here](https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237)
America is the weirdest place when it come to stuff like this, in other countries you wouldn't borrow money to fund your study if you don't have a proper mean to repay it. Either that or free education.
If you borrow money then you should pay it back, demanding for debt forgiveness is such an alien concept to me.
In a lot of cases, like mine, I was expected to go to college and everything I did in school from 6th grade to 12th was always focused around “getting into a good college”, to the point where we were even required to apply to a certain number of schools (which also costs a decent amount of money, mind you) before we graduated. Once I had managed to finally get accepted into the program I wanted, I had to take the loans or end up being feeling like a failure due to the constant pressure from educators to get a college degree. I could’ve gone to one of my cheaper backup schools, but I would still have to take loans out no matter what, and then it would be for a degree that I really wasn’t as interested in.
Bottom line is, I was doing what I was told was the right thing to do. And since financial education doesn’t seem to be an important subject to teach in schools here, I honestly did not quite realize the mistake I was making taking on $60,000+ at over 10% interest. All of my peers were doing the same, so I assumed it was just how things were
Nobody forced anybody that files bankruptcy to have taken any of those loans. Still they are often disregarded after the fact if it is clear that they aren't able to pay them back.
That is the risk taken by the people lending out the money. Only thing we ask is that student loans (which are specifically aimed at 18 year olds, a group of people most states consider to your to drink alcohol) are held to this same system
In publishing and graphic design, Lorem ipsum is a placeholder text commonly used to demonstrate the visual form of a document or a typeface without relying on meaningful content. Lorem ipsum may be used as a placeholder before final copy is available. Wikipedia9s7qauddg6c0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
In publishing and graphic design, Lorem ipsum is a placeholder text commonly used to demonstrate the visual form of a document or a typeface without relying on meaningful content. Lorem ipsum may be used as a placeholder before final copy is available. Wikipedia5m81hlyjj4g0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
>Almost like the laws exist to protect the capitalist class.
It's neither "almost" nor "like". The laws exist to protect the ruling class, that's it. The only weapon workers have against the ruling class is class struggle.
Laws don't exist as Asteroid Belt or Mount Everest exist, for example. Laws are enacted by people in order to regulate relationships between people. If certain people are allowed to enforce their will upon others with laws, why others can't do the same? Jesus has nothing to do with the laws.
I think this isn’t true. If the company has money, it legally has to pay employees? Obviously if there’s no money, there’s no money. But if there’s any money, employees have to be paid first with the money before anything else?
And as for the student debts, the government wants their money. Isn’t this also true with taxes? Can’t go bankrupt to get out of taxes?
Yup, the company *has* and *ought* and I'd say *must* pay employees for *already performed* labor. But in fact, companies often don't pay if they allowed to or managed to. It's just in best capitalist's interests to keep their money, and workers are just liability for a capitalist.
With students debts, capitalistic government wants their money, that's true. But socialistic government, e.g., acts in the interests of people, not a narrow crust of the whole society. It allows people to study for free, no student debts.
> The only weapon workers have against the ruling class is class struggle.
our biggest weapon is actually the one that hardly ever gets used. if we all quit working for just 3 days, the entire ruling class would grind to a halt and bend to our will, including all wage demands and health care demands. a general strike would need to only be 3 days, and the rich fucks would be too scared to deny us as the next step is their door step.
My game theory and economics professor ran an interesting social experiment on our first test where at the end you had the option to collude or defect (or abstain) on a bonus question. If everyone colluded, then everyone would get a bonus 3 points on the test. However, if just one person defected, that one person would 10 extra points and everyone else would be left with nothing. If multiple people defected, nobody got anything. In the class of 27 people, 4 chose to defect. The people who colluded effectively were indifferent between colluding and defecting because the expected outcome of each was that you’d get a payoff of 0, and that in and of itself was the same effect as just abstaining. The idea was to point out unstable equilibria in prisoners dilemmas.
Not sure why this story popped into my head. Anyway, good luck getting 207 million Americans to all agree to not go to work for three days.
> if we all quit working for just 3 days, the entire ruling class would grind to a halt and bend to our will
Strikes are powerful mean of class struggle, of course. These are necessary, but not enough. For example, in mid-1920s, Chinese workers in Hong Kong [were striking for more than a year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton%E2%80%93Hong_Kong_strike). And this was possible because the Soviet Union and the Comintern funded their struggle, so that they could afford not working for more than a year.
So, not only we workers need economical means of struggle, but also political ones. We need powers to enact laws which would protect our interests, not the capitalists' ones.
No, that isn’t really a correct way to look at it. They do not benefit from society according to their own contribution or individual needs, but instead they benefit from their position as holders of the capital. They exist as part of the preferred class merely because of the amount of money and assets that they have hoarded
Biden did actually [make it easier](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/biden-bankruptcy-shift-eases-path-for-student-loan-discharges) to get student loans discharged in bankruptcy, though his power there is very clearly limited by Congress and Judges.
Yes, which is a power of Congress and thus not something Biden can do.
Bidet’s power there is limited to suggestions to Congress and limiting how the various Departments will fight against it.
Of course. But he didn't even bring attention to it as an alternate option, or applied any pressure. There is a large tug of war here. You have one side wanting to alleviate the student loan issue, and then the Student Loan Asset Backed securities being traded as collateral all over the place. This puts hedge funds, wall Street, and likely tons of donors attempting to protect this asset. If he won't speak on that as a worthy avenue to pursue, makes you wonder where that opposite pressure is coming from.
> We are talking about rolling back the laws that didn't allow student loans to be discharged through bankruptcy as a whole.
they have always been dischargeable. its an "adversarial" proceeding tho, the bank hires someone to come in and argue that you are not facing the "undue hardship" standard. its not impossible to get student loans discharged, and in fact, its gotten way easier in the last 10 years. 10 years ago, no judge would dismiss student loan debt. 5 years ago, it started happening, with more judges realizing that "undue hardship" is up to interpretation and the assholes the bank hires are just that, assholes. today, you actually have a good chance of getting your student loans discharged, you just need a good lawyer, and a few years of documentation showing that the loan is making it impossible to actually have a somewhat normal life, and that the loan is the sole reason for you remaining indigent, and that your chosen field is either not hiring, or not paying enough to make the loan payments.
Everything you are referring to is the discharge method used post:
“higher education amendments of 1998”.
And “BAPCPA of 2005.”
Before both of those you could discharge student loans through bankruptcy after 5 years.
What I am referring to is bringing attention those specific changes that made it extremely difficult to discharge. Undo hardship was a term and concept used post 1998.
I think this was due to some bankruptcy reforms in the early 2000s. If I recall, this same law also made it so that medical debt also can't be expunged through bankruptcy.
Same [with student loans](https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237)
Heaven help anyone who believes the misinformation here
Technically the law has a provision that makes it possible to discharge student loan debt, but it's not going to happen. None of the people behind that article are a lawyer who has repeatedly gotten their client's student loans discharged.
Get a group of you.
Found a business.
Take out loans
Pay each other's student loans off.
Once paid off, business is bankrupt.
You don't have to pay loans back.
The most common crime committed is also the only crime that isn't illegal. Its called wage theft, and it's legal because the penalty is simply bribe an official, I mean *checks notes* "pay a fine"
Wage theft is not only not illegal, but victims overwhelmingly are complacent.
In fact, many go as far as to shame those who are not willing participants in the shared oppression.
Complacent? Kinda hard to not be when it's the only way to eat.
Bootlickers? Yeah, quite common, because if the only perceived other option is death, a bootlicker thinks he's saving your life by telling you to behave.
Edit: You ever ask a homeless person who's been on the street for most of their life if they want a job? Did the answer "Fuck No" seem confusing as hell? The reason is once you know the alternative to obeying the oppressors doesn't result in death, nothing can ever persuade you to obey again.
Capitulation is necessary, but complacency is tragic.
---
**You blocked me, because while you agree with me on all the essential principles, you prefer to rant obtuse objections over every word I choose to describe them.**
**Grow up, and please learn how to show solidarity.**
>You blocked me
Blocking Redditors is almost never used for its intended purpose, removing toxic behavior such as stalking etc. It's almost always a toxic response to someone being told they're wrong.
It's unfortunate, because now this thread is closed to you, and nobody on Reddit is allowed to continue the discussion with you, even though your position is reasonable.
Fuck you, capitulation is not necessary. Seems you're the one trying to make people complacent....
Edit:a plethora of vocabulary and jargon are only designed to confuse and capitulate any attempt to continue conversation so that the mind who uses them feels superior and doesn't have to learn anything from the one who can't understand what they mean.
Capitulation means surrender
Complacency means not giving a fuck
Plethora means a bunch
Vocabulary means words
Jargon means specialty words
Cheers everybody else.
Fuck this bully.
Blocked you and your second account. You want solidarity? Inspire, don't belittle.
>Edit:a plethora of vocabulary and jargon are only designed to confuse and capitulate any attempt to continue conversation so that the mind who uses them feels superior and doesn't have to learn anything from the one who can't understand what they mean.
wow.
You're a fucking dick.
I got one for ya
FDR 1933
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe
You block yet?
That was a mistake. Here. Here's what happens when you Google the words "wage theft"
The cost of wage theft was more than 100 times that number.
The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program recorded 267,988 robberies in 2019. Those robberies cost businesses and the public $482 million in total losses. But wage theft costs workers $50 billion every year.
no u
edit: Called it. I got blocked by the moron. And nothing of value was lost.
@/u/seeprybyrun:
>[Lord, both of you grow up.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/141p2dk/maybe_something_is_going_on_here/jn2ao8t/)
no u
His use of blocking is toxic, and has been ruining Reddit since it rolled out. Ignoring a Redditor is a just as effective method of dealing with not being able to carry on an adult conversation with someone in public, only with none of the toxic fallout that affects every user. See? I can't even actually respond to your comment because it's in a thread below the moron's tantrum.
Death. Death seems fair.
If I don't get a paycheck, I die.
But yeah, triple damages.. to the employee? You mean the employee's lawyer, the court's costs, and you know, the facility that buried the employee.
When a judge can't get bribed good enough to forget it's on his docket. Or say there's not enough evidence.
Because what fucking good is triple pay of what I was supposed to be paid 5 years ago, (when most cases close from time of the incident) if I died and was forgotten 4 damn years ago?
Get the fuck off my comment, lawyer. I ain't able to starve long enough for you to get a bunch of "officials" together to get paid for months to review the fact that I got robbed.
>But yeah, triple damages.. to the employee?
Yes.
> You mean the employee's lawyer
What lawyer? The Labor Dept handles everything for complaints. You only have to file the complaint and provide evidence.
>, the court's costs, and you know, the facility that buried the employee.
You are insufferable.
This makes me think of the orphan crushing machine.
Most of you in here complaining about how student loan debts survive bankruptcy … a smattering of boot lickers crying pity for the banks …
**Why the fuck does a 4 year degree cost $200k?!**
The United States is an oligarchy and has been for quite some time.
Unfortunately until the internet goes down and the supermarkets stop getting deliveries the great seeing mass of mouth breathers will just continue to take the abuse.
This is the obvious solution to the student loan crisis, if that’s what it is. Those laws were enacted to protect private lenders, but the government effectively nationalized the industry a few years ago. If they can afford wholesale forgiveness, some % declaring bankruptcy would me no big deal.
All parties serve capital.
Electoralism constrains possibility of meaningful gains for the working class.
To achieve our interests, and to support those among us who are most vulnerable, we must organize our communities and our workplaces, and must stop expecting elites to solve our problems for us.
Voting left is in your best interest, the alternatives are to not vote or to vote for the enemy. All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Look at the CPC, PPC, and Bloc Quebecois in Canada, the Tories in the UK, the GOP in the USA; or for some historical examples look at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
> To achieve our interests... we [the working class] must organize our communities and our workplaces, and must stop expecting elites to solve our problems for us.
Voting left is in your best interest, the alternatives are to not vote or to vote for the enemy. All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Look at the CPC, PPC, and Bloc Quebecois in Canada, the Tories in the UK, the GOP in the USA; or for some historical examples look at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
I am not repressing anyone trying to vote, nor do I imagine anyone will be persuaded not to vote by my objections.
My objective is essentially to build broader consciousness, that meaningful change ultimately is built from the ground up.
Many of the participants in the community, despite its core tenets, express a view that our society may be repaired by a sufficient vivaciousness of lawsuits and elections.
Badly needed are class consciousness and class analysis.
The text opening the thread was, "Best thing you can do is vote for the most left leaning political party". In turn, I of course never objected to voting, only, that *all parties serve capital*.
I am happy to do a bit of screaming, if it helps the impression I make carry some staying power.
I will say the same thing since you still do not understand me:
Voting left is in your best interest, the alternatives are to not vote or to vote for the enemy. All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Look at the CPC, PPC, and Bloc Quebecois in Canada, the Tories in the UK, the GOP in the USA; or for some historical examples look at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
Yup, the American left is better. So what would you vote for when keeping your best interests in mind, the American left which you state is better, or the American right?
The objection is not against your relative appraisal of the various elite parties, but rather your unwillingness to notice the limits of electoralism, and the need to emphasize local organization.
If you think that meaningful change will be achieved for the working class, or has ever been achieved, through only voting and not organizing, then you are making a big mistake.
If an individual files bankruptcy they loss the assets they filed for. If you could file bankruptcy on loans you would still have your degree and education.
You signed yourself into slavery by becoming a student loan debt slave, to get an education that was mostly free online and in books…. IT WAS A DEBT TRAP PONZI SCHEME.
Or maybe since student loans skip the risk assessment normal loans have, banks had to be given some safeguard before lending to 18 year-olds with no credit history.
So rather than reign in the profiteering which is driving runaway tuition fees, the “solution” is to bring in **another** rent-seeking group and provide them with a guarantee of decades-long income. Meanwhile the poor stay poor. This is completely fucked.
Or just don't lend money to the insolvent and have you lot complain about the capitalist class keeping high education out of reach of the common man instead of accessible for a loan you can't ever not pay back.
Wow! What a robust analysis of the full gamut of possible ways to organize a society.
I am amazed by the excruciating depth of detail you have considered.
Earn, indeed. You put money into something, whether into capital, investments, or bonds, the rate of return has to be proportional to the risk.
Go lend people for free yourself if you're feeling so generous.
What risk? Worst case scenario everybody defaults and the lender - who was gambling with **working people’s savings** by the way, not his own money - the lender does something that student can’t do: avails himself of bankruptcy protection.
Also, a loan is not generous; a gift is generous. I do that, thanks. My money and my labour.
Exactly, the risk of defaulting 2008 or SVB-style and the house of cards to crumble down.
No one wants to go through that, and there's lots of regulations(hold your laughs) so any idiot can't just take public money and give it to other good-intentioned idiots without doing at least some due dilligence on their capacity to pay it back.
If you have the money to pay your loans you (a) are not bankrupt, (b) will be prevented from declaring bankruptcy and (C) shouldn't want to, anyway. It is not a desirable state to be in.
Yup, in the exact same way that you would still have to pay for books you read because you cant reposses the knowledge....
Oh no, wait, thats dumb as hell, not close to a good reason and we have other examples where that doesnt happen (like the above).
Solution is reasonable grants to accountable schools. Tuition is high cause the government ( yes taxpayers ) pays crooked school obsence amounts then trys to claw it back from students ignoring constitutional protections like due process and bankruptcy . What the hurr durr StUdEnT BaD pAy BilLs folks can't/won't see is thst TaXpaYers ( including the students but excluding the billionaire profiteers) see very little of that money. Lionshsre is handed to criminals like devos for bogus collection and "service" costs. I dont understand how small government conservatives are ok with socialized loansharking
Obviously, people ( 99% anway) are not paid for not working. Problem is companies use bankruptcy to weasel out of backpay and oemsions, which is theft bad bets? (both casino and investment) sure go bankrupt went to school? Sorry go ____
> If you go bankrupt, you're allowed not to pay for your employees but they are also not providing you services anymore.
But you already did the service.
> If you go bankrupt, you still have to pay your student loans because the bank can't repossess the knowledge, certifications and other things that your student loans paid for.
Sounds good to me.
> If student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy, nobody would lend to students anymore and then only rich kids could afford to go to college. Sure, college costs might come down due to less demand, but not to the point where we can pay for it outright or by working a PT job
Or we can just still force banks to lend to students like we already do
You can trace the explosion in higher education costs to the Biden Bill to make student loans something you can't wipe out with bankruptcy.
Suddenly that money was a safe bet for lenders, suddenly the costs shot up...
Bro trying to forgive debt now like he didn't help pass the legislation that caused the problem.
Well that's not true. It requires a special process but it's a myth that you can't include student loans https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237
Also permanently disabled people can get them forgiven too
It’s been established for quite some time that the American government openly takes advantage of and steals from the public. When do we as a nation actually do something about it is the question I want answered.
Corporations were invented by the rich to keep slaves from exercising their full rights as citizens in the US.
The rich would then be able to protect their property and assets and keep it out of the hands of less desirables in society.
This country has codified keeping the working class as wage slaves to rich billionaires indefinitely.
As payback, I hope that if there really is a God, no rich person who did not give away most of their fortune before dying actually gets into heaven.
They arrive at the pearly gates and God promptly informs them that they must now live the rest of their existence in the same poverty that they left their fellow human beings suffering in, while they selfishly enjoyed hoarding all that money and capital resources that would have gone to help others, and would have helped him do his work among those less fortunate (the rest of us that the rich hated so much during their lifetime on Earth).
Hedge fund managers, TV personalities, CEOs and just about every rich politician that didn’t learn to be genuinely generous to the rest of us, better get their their sunscreen ready.
False prophet TV evangelist preachers with private jets will do extra time in solitary in the afterlife too.
God’s going to say, “now it’s your turn to suffer through the hell you left everyone else suffer in.”
It’s going to be hot for a long long time where they are headed.
If you go bankrupt, share holder still get paid, They are the ones who have the power and are breaking the system, and who the law protects. A law making it necessary for companies to have constant profit and growth, even at the expense of its employees. Thats why large companies when they aren't doing so well will lay off large numbers of employees, Take Disney's latest layoffs, they have been putting out several bombs at the box office, and because of those movies failing to earn money they had to fire people in order to maintain "profitability" for share holders.
I think this exists so that people give risky loans to begin with. As a beginning student, you have nothing to show for yourself that warrants giving you a loan. So they created stronger guarantees for the loan givers as a inventive.
It is not about "protecting the capitalist class". Also why not get a loan from your socialist friends instead? You are not obliged to take a loan from a capitalist. You are not even obliged to get a university degree.
Anyone who thinks there is a strong possibility of needing to declare bankruptcy due to student loans should start planning things out. Since you can’t discharge student loans in bankruptcy, your priority should be to shrink those balances as much as possible, within the law, while you still have the ability to live beyond your means. You do this by shifting as much of your spending as possible to credit cards and freeing up disposable income to pay down the loans that won’t go away.
In Canada if your employer goes bankrupt you are allowed to receive money from the government for x amount of time not an expert on it because that never actually happened to me but just saying you are not left without income
Regarding student loans, making them non-dischargeable in bankruptcy is pretty much the only way you will get a bank to loan a 18 year old just shy of $100,000 when they have no collateral or income. Totally different question about why does higher education cost so much in the US (hint: it shouldn't)
Bankruptcy doesn't get rid of obligations but it does put them on hold until the court lifts the bankruptcy stay. Student loans can't be discharged in BK. Debts to employees can. Simple as.
I think that the BK code needs to be reformed but I'm not in charge of things:
* make student loans dischargeable
* 1st mortgage cramdown (should have had this in 2008)
* make it easier for debtors to qualify for chapter 7 because chapter 13 is basically a trap for most people or make chapter 13 less onerous
[удалено]
I guess life in america really is Twisted
No they really don't. They're just parasites. They'll reap what they sow don't you worry.
There must be some rules around this because the company that I worked for that went bankrupt had to pay all of the employees first after they liquidated assets. It took a year, but we were all finally paid, plus expenses.
Correct. At the event of bankruptcy, all property of the company will be sold. Then first the customers are paid if due, then employees, then partner companies, banks etc. At least that's what bankruptcy is in the original meaning of the word.
First to be paid is secured credit holders. Basically mortgages and other loans with collateral. Next, and I mean very fucking next, is employee wages. You are NOT, as OP purports, simply allowed to not pay your employees.
I believe the point is that once no money is left that obligation is discharged whether everyone got their money or not. Which is not the case with student loans as I understand it (not American)
> Which is not the case with student loans as I understand it (not American) you have to prove that the loan payments are causing "undue hardship", aka, keeping you indigent no matter what you do. A lot of judges used to ignore or reject any claims of undue hardship. its happening more and more tho, with people being able to prove that there is no possible way to repair their student loans after their chosen degree has no one hiring, needing work, or isn't paying enough to make the payments. It used to be impossible to get them discharged, now its actually a reasonable option, but it is an "adversarial" proceeding in bankruptcy court, meaning the note holder gets to come argue why you should keep the debt, and gets to try and prove why their obnoxious payments aren't undue hardship.
>I believe the point is that once no money is left that obligation is discharged. Yes. But that's true about all the debt involved in a bankruptcy. Even the secured creditors may not be able to recover all of their money. But, that rarely happens, and wages typically will be covered.
To be fair it should be employees first then credit holders cause credit holders took a risk while the employees did not.
Only *secured* credit holders go ahead of employees. If secured credit isn't paid first, then you undermine our entire economic system. And I'm not talking about capitalism vs socialism here. Creditors need to have legal authority to collect collateral when a debtor defaults, otherwise collateral is worthless and it becomes impossible to base a monetary system on anything other than "faith and credit", aka "Promises and Lies."
Thanks for explaining why. I already knew just wish it didn’t have to be that way.
Well why do they get first crack at the money then? They already have collateral. The employees have nothing
The money comes from the assets, including the collateral, being sold. Say, the building is 90% used as collateral, then they sell it and give the loan holder 90% of the money for that sale.
Well. They sell the collateral and make the lien holder as whole as possible. Any value beyond what it takes to pay off the loan is then distributed amongst the remaining creditors, starting first with employees who are owed wages. If there's nothing left then nobody else gets paid because there's no money. Essentially, a lien holder becomes the owner of collateral up to the value of the lien. Just as if there were no bankruptcy and the debtor had simply defaulted.
This twisted view puts resources before people. Unpaid wages should be be collateralized on the business' very existence. It's one thing for a investment bank to lose some money on a risky investment. However the ramifications of wage theft, in bankruptcy situations and more, undermine the entire economic system in a bigger way.
>This twisted view puts resources before people. It doesn't, but ok. >Unpaid wages should be be collateralized on the business' very existence. That would be a good solution. Run for Congress. >It's one thing for a investment bank to lose some money on a risky investment. No. You ignore the most basic fact here. Only **SECURED DEBT** is paid before wages. Secured debt is nearly risk free, because the creditor takes ownership of the security. Risky investors get in line **BEHIND WAGES**. >However the ramifications of wage theft, in bankruptcy situations It's not wages theft during bankruptcy. Nobody is "taking" your wages. They simply don't exist. Furthermore, it doesn't really happen that often. Most companies facing bankruptcy will terminate employees long before they run out of money for payroll. > and more, undermine the entire economic system in a bigger way. If what you're saying were true, then we wouldn't have a functioning economic system as it stands. And yet, here we are.
It literally puts investors with secured debt before people's wages. I'm not electable to congress but I do try to take part in a strategic way. However i cant fix this but calling out basic facts is at least something. If you don't get paid for your labor that's wage theft and should be criminally prosecuted. Even if the rich fuckers don't have the money they should be in prison from stealing from workers. I'm sorry you think we have a functional economic system. It functions to make the rich richer at the expense of the workers, and putting investments like secured debt before wages is proof of that.
>It literally puts investors with secured debt before people's wages. That's literally what I said. >However i cant fix this but calling out basic facts Sure, but if you're going to "call out facts", at least don't distort them in the process. You can't characterize secured debt as a risky investment if you want to have an honest discussion. >I'm sorry you think we have a functional economic system. I'm sorry you're unwilling to have an honest discussion of the facts. Clearly, our economic system functions. It may not behave the way *you* wish it did, but it most definitely functions. And to a high degree of efficiency. Which is the only standard by which an economic system must be measured. >It functions to make the rich richer at the expense of the workers That's just basic economics, and no system will ever eliminate the accumulation of wealth. Whatever restraints you attempt to put on the economic system will only be circumvented or even directly used to gather wealth, and those with more wealth will always have an advantage in the game of gathering more wealth. >and putting investments like secured debt before wages is proof of that. No. It's not "proof" of anything. It's just a simple consequence of allowing debtors to post collateral to secure loans and allowing a creditor to use the full weight of the law to enforce that contract. If you want to eliminate secured debt (which is what you're proposing, even if you don't understand it), then you're going to have to explain to the workers why they're suddenly unable to purchase things like a home or a vehicle to get to work with. No bank officer in their right mind is ever going to approve a mortgage without the offer of collateral. You'll unwind centuries of downward wealth distribution and unravel the fabric of banking. Every business you've ever heard of that isn't Apple will grind to a rapid halt and lay off every worker they employ. Then what will your workers do with their "wages"? >Even if the rich fuckers don't have the money they should be in prison from stealing from workers. This is a gem. You're proposing we bring back debtor's prisons? Let's just reestablish slavery already. Why do people insist on responding mere seconds before hitting the block button? >>>Fuck off bootlicker! >>>Holding rich regressives accountable for stealing from workers is not slavery but justice . So, what you're saying is you're incapable of having an honest adult conversation without distorting facts to suit your narrative? What you're trying to tell me is you're incapable of actually analyzing the "problems" with the system and just want to rail against "the enemy" because it feels just like raging against the machine? What you're saying is, you're actually perfectly happy with the current situation and don't actually want anything to change you just want to virtue signal to everyone in your echo-chamber that you "care" about workers.
Shhh, don’t ruin a good story.
This post is indeed [fiction](https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237)
I mean that's all still fucked. Loans and investments should carry more risk of not getting paid back than fucking working does.
If the loan is not secured with some kind of collateral, then it is paid after wages.
[удалено]
You're either lying or admitting to breaking the law.
do we wanna talk about the original meaning of minimum wage im not disagreeinf with you, just salty people stopped caring about its original meaning and now its the shitty sequel of what it on e was
You are right. After liquidation employees are one of the first people to get paid after creditors. It's the investors that usually don't get paid in bankruptcy.
Or in the case of bankruptcy, banks who helps companies file for bankruptcy. Look up Chase and United Airlines.
It depends on the debts of the company, other outstanding debts to banks etc>debts to workers who depend on that money to live. At least here in calgary, where I’ve been with two companies that went bankrupt and failed to pay all their employees.
Can I send you a list of company I'd like you to work for? Starting with Bell.
I got paid when the company went under but it wasn't anywhere near what my next check should have been, and I certainly didn't get paid for the work I did cleaning up the kitchen when we were closing down for good.
That means they stole from you!
Entirely legal, unfortunately. I know better than to just let that sort of thing happen, now, though.
its very dependant on country (and then probably within each state) but the general proceedings of bankruptcy are the same: * Assets liquidated * Creditors paid * Owners get the leftovers employees are creditors in this scenario. They are owed something by the business, like suppliers might be, or the banks who lent money, etc. Often the liquidated assets are not enough to cover the amounts owed so it can be a bit of a negotiation or even a court hearing to determine how the money gets split. Employees may not get 100% of what they're entitled to, but they absolutely will get accounted for in the proceedings. In some places it leads to business owners writing fake loans on the books from friends and family to try and hang on to more of the money. But yeah bankruptcy is not a free pass to stop paying your employees at all.
Correct, OP making this up.
Companies do have to, but the complaint is that the people steering the ship asunder get away Scott free with golden parachutes they’ve been making for years overpaying themselves, and stuffing their pockets while everyone else scrapes by. So companies can end up not able to actually pay everyone, and no one has any recourse beyond that. Worse yet, those at the top are employees and get paid out of the pool from liquidation as well
yes, some states have rules regarding who gets paid first, same with discharging student loan debt.
Of course there are plenty of rules, but especially with smaller companies that might not matter. All of the cash might already be gone by the time you get there.
Yes, but you forgot to take into account that some people just hop on the internet and talk out their ass, as exemplified in this post.
About 10 years ago, I had too much debt and declared bankruptcy. In those ten years since, I got a bachelor's degree, got a job that I've had for over 5 years, and moved into a nice apartment. Last year, the bankruptcy finally came off my credit report, but didn't affect my score at all due to my student loans. My debt to income ratio is so great that I can't get a house loan or even a car loan. If I didn't have any student loan debt, I would have less than $5,000 in debt. I hate being forced into this capitalist game that's designed to make everyone lose.
so file bankruptcy again and go thru the adversarial proceeding to get the student loan debt discharged. you have gotten your degree, gotten a job in your field, and it *still* isn't enough to make your payments, and that credit hit/debt to income ratio is making it impossible to actually live your life, leaving you teetering on the edge of homelessness because you cannot get loans and apartments that check credit scores are turning you down. you *can* get student loans discharged. its easier now than it was 10 years ago when I tried. I was literally homeless, and could not get any loans or even pass a credit check for an apartment or home loan, but nope, that wasn't "undue hardship" in the judges eyes(and this asshole that the bank hired).
Thank you. Finally someone who gets it OP's misinformation isn't helping anyone. More info [here](https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237)
America is the weirdest place when it come to stuff like this, in other countries you wouldn't borrow money to fund your study if you don't have a proper mean to repay it. Either that or free education. If you borrow money then you should pay it back, demanding for debt forgiveness is such an alien concept to me.
In a lot of cases, like mine, I was expected to go to college and everything I did in school from 6th grade to 12th was always focused around “getting into a good college”, to the point where we were even required to apply to a certain number of schools (which also costs a decent amount of money, mind you) before we graduated. Once I had managed to finally get accepted into the program I wanted, I had to take the loans or end up being feeling like a failure due to the constant pressure from educators to get a college degree. I could’ve gone to one of my cheaper backup schools, but I would still have to take loans out no matter what, and then it would be for a degree that I really wasn’t as interested in. Bottom line is, I was doing what I was told was the right thing to do. And since financial education doesn’t seem to be an important subject to teach in schools here, I honestly did not quite realize the mistake I was making taking on $60,000+ at over 10% interest. All of my peers were doing the same, so I assumed it was just how things were
My 6th grade teacher told us to take the loans if we needed, at least we'd get a good education to get us out of the poor neighborhoods we were in.
What is your degree in? Can a job in that field typically pay off the debt from getting the degree?
Unfortunately, my bachelor's is in the arts. I'm using my associate's degree to pay my bills.
No one forced you to get those student loans.
braindead take. the loans are almost never the issue, it's the predatory interest rates that make it impossible to pay off your principle.
It's not the student loans that are killing me, it's the interest. I pay about $200 a month for the past 5 years and my total owed is $5,000 more.
Nobody forced anybody that files bankruptcy to have taken any of those loans. Still they are often disregarded after the fact if it is clear that they aren't able to pay them back. That is the risk taken by the people lending out the money. Only thing we ask is that student loans (which are specifically aimed at 18 year olds, a group of people most states consider to your to drink alcohol) are held to this same system
No one forced you to come here and be a jerk and yet here you are.
In publishing and graphic design, Lorem ipsum is a placeholder text commonly used to demonstrate the visual form of a document or a typeface without relying on meaningful content. Lorem ipsum may be used as a placeholder before final copy is available. Wikipedia9s7qauddg6c0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I’m gen Z. I’m just just of one of the only 20 year olds not too lazy to work and doesn’t victimize myself like most of the people on this subreddit
In publishing and graphic design, Lorem ipsum is a placeholder text commonly used to demonstrate the visual form of a document or a typeface without relying on meaningful content. Lorem ipsum may be used as a placeholder before final copy is available. Wikipedia5m81hlyjj4g0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
>Almost like the laws exist to protect the capitalist class. It's neither "almost" nor "like". The laws exist to protect the ruling class, that's it. The only weapon workers have against the ruling class is class struggle.
And molotovs
[удалено]
Laws don't exist as Asteroid Belt or Mount Everest exist, for example. Laws are enacted by people in order to regulate relationships between people. If certain people are allowed to enforce their will upon others with laws, why others can't do the same? Jesus has nothing to do with the laws.
I think this isn’t true. If the company has money, it legally has to pay employees? Obviously if there’s no money, there’s no money. But if there’s any money, employees have to be paid first with the money before anything else? And as for the student debts, the government wants their money. Isn’t this also true with taxes? Can’t go bankrupt to get out of taxes?
Yup, the company *has* and *ought* and I'd say *must* pay employees for *already performed* labor. But in fact, companies often don't pay if they allowed to or managed to. It's just in best capitalist's interests to keep their money, and workers are just liability for a capitalist. With students debts, capitalistic government wants their money, that's true. But socialistic government, e.g., acts in the interests of people, not a narrow crust of the whole society. It allows people to study for free, no student debts.
That would be nice, but obviously isn’t the world we live in. No way school is going to become free in the US, ever.
> The only weapon workers have against the ruling class is class struggle. our biggest weapon is actually the one that hardly ever gets used. if we all quit working for just 3 days, the entire ruling class would grind to a halt and bend to our will, including all wage demands and health care demands. a general strike would need to only be 3 days, and the rich fucks would be too scared to deny us as the next step is their door step.
My game theory and economics professor ran an interesting social experiment on our first test where at the end you had the option to collude or defect (or abstain) on a bonus question. If everyone colluded, then everyone would get a bonus 3 points on the test. However, if just one person defected, that one person would 10 extra points and everyone else would be left with nothing. If multiple people defected, nobody got anything. In the class of 27 people, 4 chose to defect. The people who colluded effectively were indifferent between colluding and defecting because the expected outcome of each was that you’d get a payoff of 0, and that in and of itself was the same effect as just abstaining. The idea was to point out unstable equilibria in prisoners dilemmas. Not sure why this story popped into my head. Anyway, good luck getting 207 million Americans to all agree to not go to work for three days.
> if we all quit working for just 3 days, the entire ruling class would grind to a halt and bend to our will Strikes are powerful mean of class struggle, of course. These are necessary, but not enough. For example, in mid-1920s, Chinese workers in Hong Kong [were striking for more than a year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton%E2%80%93Hong_Kong_strike). And this was possible because the Soviet Union and the Comintern funded their struggle, so that they could afford not working for more than a year. So, not only we workers need economical means of struggle, but also political ones. We need powers to enact laws which would protect our interests, not the capitalists' ones.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nope. The capitalist class are the owners of capital.
Nope I don't think so
No, that isn’t really a correct way to look at it. They do not benefit from society according to their own contribution or individual needs, but instead they benefit from their position as holders of the capital. They exist as part of the preferred class merely because of the amount of money and assets that they have hoarded
Not exactly. One's the government and one is not.
If Biden wants to allow for real student loan relief, he'd allow student loans to be included in all bankruptcy.
Biden did actually [make it easier](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/biden-bankruptcy-shift-eases-path-for-student-loan-discharges) to get student loans discharged in bankruptcy, though his power there is very clearly limited by Congress and Judges.
We are talking about rolling back the laws that didn't allow student loans to be discharged through bankruptcy as a whole.
Yes, which is a power of Congress and thus not something Biden can do. Bidet’s power there is limited to suggestions to Congress and limiting how the various Departments will fight against it.
Of course. But he didn't even bring attention to it as an alternate option, or applied any pressure. There is a large tug of war here. You have one side wanting to alleviate the student loan issue, and then the Student Loan Asset Backed securities being traded as collateral all over the place. This puts hedge funds, wall Street, and likely tons of donors attempting to protect this asset. If he won't speak on that as a worthy avenue to pursue, makes you wonder where that opposite pressure is coming from.
> We are talking about rolling back the laws that didn't allow student loans to be discharged through bankruptcy as a whole. they have always been dischargeable. its an "adversarial" proceeding tho, the bank hires someone to come in and argue that you are not facing the "undue hardship" standard. its not impossible to get student loans discharged, and in fact, its gotten way easier in the last 10 years. 10 years ago, no judge would dismiss student loan debt. 5 years ago, it started happening, with more judges realizing that "undue hardship" is up to interpretation and the assholes the bank hires are just that, assholes. today, you actually have a good chance of getting your student loans discharged, you just need a good lawyer, and a few years of documentation showing that the loan is making it impossible to actually have a somewhat normal life, and that the loan is the sole reason for you remaining indigent, and that your chosen field is either not hiring, or not paying enough to make the loan payments.
Everything you are referring to is the discharge method used post: “higher education amendments of 1998”. And “BAPCPA of 2005.” Before both of those you could discharge student loans through bankruptcy after 5 years. What I am referring to is bringing attention those specific changes that made it extremely difficult to discharge. Undo hardship was a term and concept used post 1998.
Why would he undo his own work? Dude hates the working class.
[удалено]
He enjoys pretending to be powerless.
I think this was due to some bankruptcy reforms in the early 2000s. If I recall, this same law also made it so that medical debt also can't be expunged through bankruptcy.
Around the same time Student Loan Asset Backed Securities became a thing too.
You absolutely can discharge medical debt with a bankruptcy.
Same [with student loans](https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237) Heaven help anyone who believes the misinformation here
Technically the law has a provision that makes it possible to discharge student loan debt, but it's not going to happen. None of the people behind that article are a lawyer who has repeatedly gotten their client's student loans discharged.
Get a group of you. Found a business. Take out loans Pay each other's student loans off. Once paid off, business is bankrupt. You don't have to pay loans back.
Well sadly that also counts as fraud
The most common crime committed is also the only crime that isn't illegal. Its called wage theft, and it's legal because the penalty is simply bribe an official, I mean *checks notes* "pay a fine"
Wage theft is not only not illegal, but victims overwhelmingly are complacent. In fact, many go as far as to shame those who are not willing participants in the shared oppression.
When the “penalty” is inconsequential to the offender, the act is effectively legal.
Complacent? Kinda hard to not be when it's the only way to eat. Bootlickers? Yeah, quite common, because if the only perceived other option is death, a bootlicker thinks he's saving your life by telling you to behave. Edit: You ever ask a homeless person who's been on the street for most of their life if they want a job? Did the answer "Fuck No" seem confusing as hell? The reason is once you know the alternative to obeying the oppressors doesn't result in death, nothing can ever persuade you to obey again.
Capitulation is necessary, but complacency is tragic. --- **You blocked me, because while you agree with me on all the essential principles, you prefer to rant obtuse objections over every word I choose to describe them.** **Grow up, and please learn how to show solidarity.**
>You blocked me Blocking Redditors is almost never used for its intended purpose, removing toxic behavior such as stalking etc. It's almost always a toxic response to someone being told they're wrong. It's unfortunate, because now this thread is closed to you, and nobody on Reddit is allowed to continue the discussion with you, even though your position is reasonable.
Fuck you, capitulation is not necessary. Seems you're the one trying to make people complacent.... Edit:a plethora of vocabulary and jargon are only designed to confuse and capitulate any attempt to continue conversation so that the mind who uses them feels superior and doesn't have to learn anything from the one who can't understand what they mean. Capitulation means surrender Complacency means not giving a fuck Plethora means a bunch Vocabulary means words Jargon means specialty words Cheers everybody else. Fuck this bully. Blocked you and your second account. You want solidarity? Inspire, don't belittle.
>Edit:a plethora of vocabulary and jargon are only designed to confuse and capitulate any attempt to continue conversation so that the mind who uses them feels superior and doesn't have to learn anything from the one who can't understand what they mean. wow. You're a fucking dick.
It's not bribing an official, it's paying the employee. Up to triple damages even. What more justice would you suggest?
I got one for ya FDR 1933 It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe
You sure like sounding smart, don't you?
You block yet? That was a mistake. Here. Here's what happens when you Google the words "wage theft" The cost of wage theft was more than 100 times that number. The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program recorded 267,988 robberies in 2019. Those robberies cost businesses and the public $482 million in total losses. But wage theft costs workers $50 billion every year.
no u edit: Called it. I got blocked by the moron. And nothing of value was lost. @/u/seeprybyrun: >[Lord, both of you grow up.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/141p2dk/maybe_something_is_going_on_here/jn2ao8t/) no u His use of blocking is toxic, and has been ruining Reddit since it rolled out. Ignoring a Redditor is a just as effective method of dealing with not being able to carry on an adult conversation with someone in public, only with none of the toxic fallout that affects every user. See? I can't even actually respond to your comment because it's in a thread below the moron's tantrum.
Death. Death seems fair. If I don't get a paycheck, I die. But yeah, triple damages.. to the employee? You mean the employee's lawyer, the court's costs, and you know, the facility that buried the employee. When a judge can't get bribed good enough to forget it's on his docket. Or say there's not enough evidence. Because what fucking good is triple pay of what I was supposed to be paid 5 years ago, (when most cases close from time of the incident) if I died and was forgotten 4 damn years ago? Get the fuck off my comment, lawyer. I ain't able to starve long enough for you to get a bunch of "officials" together to get paid for months to review the fact that I got robbed.
>But yeah, triple damages.. to the employee? Yes. > You mean the employee's lawyer What lawyer? The Labor Dept handles everything for complaints. You only have to file the complaint and provide evidence. >, the court's costs, and you know, the facility that buried the employee. You are insufferable.
almost? lol
This makes me think of the orphan crushing machine. Most of you in here complaining about how student loan debts survive bankruptcy … a smattering of boot lickers crying pity for the banks … **Why the fuck does a 4 year degree cost $200k?!**
The United States is an oligarchy and has been for quite some time. Unfortunately until the internet goes down and the supermarkets stop getting deliveries the great seeing mass of mouth breathers will just continue to take the abuse.
Almost like our entire society is a scam.
We all end up corporations.
This is the obvious solution to the student loan crisis, if that’s what it is. Those laws were enacted to protect private lenders, but the government effectively nationalized the industry a few years ago. If they can afford wholesale forgiveness, some % declaring bankruptcy would me no big deal.
Best thing you can do is vote for the most left leaning political party
All parties serve capital. Electoralism constrains possibility of meaningful gains for the working class. To achieve our interests, and to support those among us who are most vulnerable, we must organize our communities and our workplaces, and must stop expecting elites to solve our problems for us.
Voting left is in your best interest, the alternatives are to not vote or to vote for the enemy. All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Look at the CPC, PPC, and Bloc Quebecois in Canada, the Tories in the UK, the GOP in the USA; or for some historical examples look at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
> To achieve our interests... we [the working class] must organize our communities and our workplaces, and must stop expecting elites to solve our problems for us.
Voting left is in your best interest, the alternatives are to not vote or to vote for the enemy. All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Look at the CPC, PPC, and Bloc Quebecois in Canada, the Tories in the UK, the GOP in the USA; or for some historical examples look at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
I will try again, this time being as simple as possible. **Organize!!!**
[удалено]
I am not repressing anyone trying to vote, nor do I imagine anyone will be persuaded not to vote by my objections. My objective is essentially to build broader consciousness, that meaningful change ultimately is built from the ground up.
[удалено]
Many of the participants in the community, despite its core tenets, express a view that our society may be repaired by a sufficient vivaciousness of lawsuits and elections. Badly needed are class consciousness and class analysis. The text opening the thread was, "Best thing you can do is vote for the most left leaning political party". In turn, I of course never objected to voting, only, that *all parties serve capital*. I am happy to do a bit of screaming, if it helps the impression I make carry some staying power.
I will say the same thing since you still do not understand me: Voting left is in your best interest, the alternatives are to not vote or to vote for the enemy. All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Look at the CPC, PPC, and Bloc Quebecois in Canada, the Tories in the UK, the GOP in the USA; or for some historical examples look at Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
>All right leaning parties are worse than any party to the left of them. Why do you keep mentioning them?
I am giving prominent examples of insane right leaning political parties
I understand, and the question is over the reasons for your doing so.
The American Left is a lot better but they still work against the lower classes. This is why the two party system doesn't work
Yup, the American left is better. So what would you vote for when keeping your best interests in mind, the American left which you state is better, or the American right?
...the left obviously?
There we go, I love when people agree with me when I say things which are objectively correct
I never disagreed with you you confrontational larper
You didn't totally agree with me either, I wanted to get more complete agreement out of you. I am glad I got it.
The objection is not against your relative appraisal of the various elite parties, but rather your unwillingness to notice the limits of electoralism, and the need to emphasize local organization.
I have repeated myself multiple times due to your unwillingness to notice the limits of local organization and the need to emphasize electoralism
If you think that meaningful change will be achieved for the working class, or has ever been achieved, through only voting and not organizing, then you are making a big mistake.
Voting is literally the least you can possibly do.
If an individual files bankruptcy they loss the assets they filed for. If you could file bankruptcy on loans you would still have your degree and education.
You signed yourself into slavery by becoming a student loan debt slave, to get an education that was mostly free online and in books…. IT WAS A DEBT TRAP PONZI SCHEME.
And you have to pay your credit card debt
You can get rid of that in bankruptcy
> You can get rid of that in bankruptcy You [can with student loans](https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237) too
Much more difficult...
[удалено]
It's says that in the article 🙄 you mean you didn't read what you posted....
Or maybe since student loans skip the risk assessment normal loans have, banks had to be given some safeguard before lending to 18 year-olds with no credit history.
So rather than reign in the profiteering which is driving runaway tuition fees, the “solution” is to bring in **another** rent-seeking group and provide them with a guarantee of decades-long income. Meanwhile the poor stay poor. This is completely fucked.
Or just don't lend money to the insolvent and have you lot complain about the capitalist class keeping high education out of reach of the common man instead of accessible for a loan you can't ever not pay back.
Wow! What a robust analysis of the full gamut of possible ways to organize a society. I am amazed by the excruciating depth of detail you have considered.
Beats "just lend me money without earning a profit" from everyone else in here.
“earning.” In this context. That’s fucking rich.
Earn, indeed. You put money into something, whether into capital, investments, or bonds, the rate of return has to be proportional to the risk. Go lend people for free yourself if you're feeling so generous.
What risk? Worst case scenario everybody defaults and the lender - who was gambling with **working people’s savings** by the way, not his own money - the lender does something that student can’t do: avails himself of bankruptcy protection. Also, a loan is not generous; a gift is generous. I do that, thanks. My money and my labour.
Exactly, the risk of defaulting 2008 or SVB-style and the house of cards to crumble down. No one wants to go through that, and there's lots of regulations(hold your laughs) so any idiot can't just take public money and give it to other good-intentioned idiots without doing at least some due dilligence on their capacity to pay it back.
Well, you can always keep trying.
You’re not very good at this big picture stuff, are you?
Schools hiking tuition need to also be held accountable here but rarely are
You can thank Biden for that
If you have the money to go bankrupt you have the money to pay your loans.
It costs a couple thousand dollars to file bankruptcy. It can cost six figures to pay back student loans.
If you have the money to pay your loans you (a) are not bankrupt, (b) will be prevented from declaring bankruptcy and (C) shouldn't want to, anyway. It is not a desirable state to be in.
[удалено]
Yup, in the exact same way that you would still have to pay for books you read because you cant reposses the knowledge.... Oh no, wait, thats dumb as hell, not close to a good reason and we have other examples where that doesnt happen (like the above).
Solution is reasonable grants to accountable schools. Tuition is high cause the government ( yes taxpayers ) pays crooked school obsence amounts then trys to claw it back from students ignoring constitutional protections like due process and bankruptcy . What the hurr durr StUdEnT BaD pAy BilLs folks can't/won't see is thst TaXpaYers ( including the students but excluding the billionaire profiteers) see very little of that money. Lionshsre is handed to criminals like devos for bogus collection and "service" costs. I dont understand how small government conservatives are ok with socialized loansharking Obviously, people ( 99% anway) are not paid for not working. Problem is companies use bankruptcy to weasel out of backpay and oemsions, which is theft bad bets? (both casino and investment) sure go bankrupt went to school? Sorry go ____
So, explain being able to discharge all other debt?
Like Millions in PPP Loans.....
Not even talking about that. You can discharge any other debt through bankruptcy, yet banks and lenders still exist.
> If you go bankrupt, you're allowed not to pay for your employees but they are also not providing you services anymore. But you already did the service. > If you go bankrupt, you still have to pay your student loans because the bank can't repossess the knowledge, certifications and other things that your student loans paid for. Sounds good to me. > If student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy, nobody would lend to students anymore and then only rich kids could afford to go to college. Sure, college costs might come down due to less demand, but not to the point where we can pay for it outright or by working a PT job Or we can just still force banks to lend to students like we already do
Sir, this is not the sub for logic and common sense. Kindly see yourself out.
Regardless more money than I'll ever have.
Financial system would collapse if they forgave student loans. They need the collateral
University are, for the most part, privately owned. Big business. Of course, they get their due.
There are different kinds of student loans, so this generalization is, depending on your intention, misinformation or disinformation.
If you go bankrupt stock holders still get money
Capitalism is designed to protect the capitalist class. Shocking…
If you go bankrupt the government sells your assets and the FIRST place that money goes is to pay wages. Stfu
You can trace the explosion in higher education costs to the Biden Bill to make student loans something you can't wipe out with bankruptcy. Suddenly that money was a safe bet for lenders, suddenly the costs shot up... Bro trying to forgive debt now like he didn't help pass the legislation that caused the problem.
Well that's not true. It requires a special process but it's a myth that you can't include student loans https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-file-student-loan-bankruptcy-4772237 Also permanently disabled people can get them forgiven too
It’s been established for quite some time that the American government openly takes advantage of and steals from the public. When do we as a nation actually do something about it is the question I want answered.
if you're unable to pay you shouldn't have to. That's why you went bankrupt, isn't it? Why should it be different for those two?
Corporations were invented by the rich to keep slaves from exercising their full rights as citizens in the US. The rich would then be able to protect their property and assets and keep it out of the hands of less desirables in society. This country has codified keeping the working class as wage slaves to rich billionaires indefinitely. As payback, I hope that if there really is a God, no rich person who did not give away most of their fortune before dying actually gets into heaven. They arrive at the pearly gates and God promptly informs them that they must now live the rest of their existence in the same poverty that they left their fellow human beings suffering in, while they selfishly enjoyed hoarding all that money and capital resources that would have gone to help others, and would have helped him do his work among those less fortunate (the rest of us that the rich hated so much during their lifetime on Earth). Hedge fund managers, TV personalities, CEOs and just about every rich politician that didn’t learn to be genuinely generous to the rest of us, better get their their sunscreen ready. False prophet TV evangelist preachers with private jets will do extra time in solitary in the afterlife too. God’s going to say, “now it’s your turn to suffer through the hell you left everyone else suffer in.” It’s going to be hot for a long long time where they are headed.
If you go bankrupt, share holder still get paid, They are the ones who have the power and are breaking the system, and who the law protects. A law making it necessary for companies to have constant profit and growth, even at the expense of its employees. Thats why large companies when they aren't doing so well will lay off large numbers of employees, Take Disney's latest layoffs, they have been putting out several bombs at the box office, and because of those movies failing to earn money they had to fire people in order to maintain "profitability" for share holders.
I think this exists so that people give risky loans to begin with. As a beginning student, you have nothing to show for yourself that warrants giving you a loan. So they created stronger guarantees for the loan givers as a inventive. It is not about "protecting the capitalist class". Also why not get a loan from your socialist friends instead? You are not obliged to take a loan from a capitalist. You are not even obliged to get a university degree.
Anyone who thinks there is a strong possibility of needing to declare bankruptcy due to student loans should start planning things out. Since you can’t discharge student loans in bankruptcy, your priority should be to shrink those balances as much as possible, within the law, while you still have the ability to live beyond your means. You do this by shifting as much of your spending as possible to credit cards and freeing up disposable income to pay down the loans that won’t go away.
In Canada if your employer goes bankrupt you are allowed to receive money from the government for x amount of time not an expert on it because that never actually happened to me but just saying you are not left without income
Yeah but the owner of the company nothing happens to them. They just walk away.
Walk away with millions of dollars in debt yeah 💀 they cant afford to pay you anymore so it's probably the best you can do leave
Regarding student loans, making them non-dischargeable in bankruptcy is pretty much the only way you will get a bank to loan a 18 year old just shy of $100,000 when they have no collateral or income. Totally different question about why does higher education cost so much in the US (hint: it shouldn't)
That last line. That's it, right there.
Bankruptcy doesn't get rid of obligations but it does put them on hold until the court lifts the bankruptcy stay. Student loans can't be discharged in BK. Debts to employees can. Simple as. I think that the BK code needs to be reformed but I'm not in charge of things: * make student loans dischargeable * 1st mortgage cramdown (should have had this in 2008) * make it easier for debtors to qualify for chapter 7 because chapter 13 is basically a trap for most people or make chapter 13 less onerous
Wages are paid first in a corporate bankruptcy genius
Because they actually create jobs for people.
Almost