It would make a difference to the people living there who are too poor to leave.

A few folks have mentioned that these charts

1. conflate liberal/conservative with the dominant left/right parties in these nations
2. does not include people who do not identify with one of those dominant parties
3. have some somewhat unreliable stats magic behind them

A lot of young men in the US are reporting themselves as “not a Democrat or Republican”, and that’s causing a lot of this proportional shift. I would bet that characterizes a lot of folks on this site who are not conservative.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/13/24098780/politics-gender-divide-generation-z-youth-men-women

https://www.allendowney.com/blog/2024/01/28/is-the-ideology-gap-growing/

While I endorse the change, I believe it’s being made to avoid arbitration being weaponized by class action plaintiffs, which can be more costly than a class action lawsuit

Eg: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/mass-arbitration-aaa-looks-to-reign-in-4534306/#:~:text=In one example%2C Uber was,at the outset of cases.

The federal government tracks all student loans, they know very explicitly how many people qualify.

If you’re making income based payments, and you have low income, the debt grows over time because the payments aren’t even enough to cover interest on the debt.

2.5 million people qualified for this plan, one of 5 that were put in place.

The plan was largely targeting dropouts, because they tend to be most trapped by loans. They don’t get any income benefit from a college degree, and tend to have lower paying jobs. If you’re doing income based repayment at minimum wage, it’s possible for your loan principle to grow continuously.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it definitely would have helped people.

That’s daddy long neck in the front

https://youtu.be/2OVUupJ4iqQ?si=gsV0kWIW96R3wLg3