Your username matches your comment - harsh, unempathetic, and blind to a larger, kinder view of society as you pursue a simplistic, black and white ethical code.
Your willingness to throw people to the wolves because they've pursued their dreams without strict pragmatism about their career prospects is disturbing, to say the least. Do you really think society will be better off without any English professors? Artists? Dreamers? Of course not. So this guy's problem is indirectly everyone's problem.
Absolutely wrong. My viewpoint is the MOST empathetic, loving and kind. Here is why.
What is better for a person at the bottom of the economic ladder who wants to pursue actual values---happiness and prosperity---instead of simply languishing?
The answer is a free market and a booming, robust economy.
What about the ones who languish? You literally can't help them anyway. Somebody who just lives on the dole and stays there is NOT going to have a happy life, no matter how hard you try to help them.
Therefore, as a society, we should always choose freedom and the concommitant prosperity over egalitarianism, which just sacrifices those pursuing values to those who are helplessly languishing.
Also I'm all for artists, dreamers and English professors--that's why I disjuncted "willing to gamble." Which is quite reasonable if you're young and possibly even reasonable when you're 42, poor, and have a family---which is why I didn't pass judgement on this specific man.
Imagine that I found a startup. But I'm 42, with a wife and a kid. I'm running into debt because my startup isn't taking off.
Would you say something similar to me? Would you tell me that society would be better off with more startups? (A true statement, BTW.) Would you say that I should pursue my dreams without strict pragmatism about my career path? (Another true statement.)
Or would you say that, having taken the responsibility of getting married and having a child, I should think at least somewhat pragmatically about the odds of a payoff before I condemn them to a life of debt so that I can chase my improbable dream? Startups working are a 10-to-1 longshot, you know. That gives me a 9-out-of-10 chance of it not paying off, leaving my family in a large financial hole.
Your response is as black-and-white as the one you are responding to. The odds are against an English PhD getting tenure. (I don't know that they're 10-to-1 against - anyone got real numbers?) Chasing your dream is fine, doing what you love is fine, but leaving your family in financial danger while you go against the odds is a bit less benign than you paint it.
Well, hang on. While I understand your reaction, this is a bit of a strawman:
> without any English professors?
It does feel like we're educating too many English majors for the limited number of English teaching slots. Not to mention that English professors need to be of a certain caliber, and most English majors aren't.
Yes, I do not wish to finance someone else's dream. I could have told this guy 20 years ago that his life plan was awful and going to lead to financial hardship.
Your willingness to throw people to the wolves because they've pursued their dreams without strict pragmatism about their career prospects is disturbing, to say the least. Do you really think society will be better off without any English professors? Artists? Dreamers? Of course not. So this guy's problem is indirectly everyone's problem.