It might be "subtly" different, which is exactly why it'll end up on a privilege log- it isn't different enough. And if you start your own legal strategy with the question "what does corporate policy say?" you've already failed yourself.

No, you give it to HR. That way there's no question whether you were seeking legal advice. Preferably with a cover letter that says you're preserving all of your personal electronic communications and are prepared to produce all of them on receipt of a subpoena, due to your concern that there may be merit to the claims in the lawsuit. Such letter, of course, being discoverable as internal corporate documents rather than involving privileged legal communications... let me know how much paid leave you end up with. Or how big the unlawful termination settlement was, whichever.

Nonetheless suggesting you don't understand them or aren't following the discussion. *Only* the Household Survey generates unemployment data. *Only* the Establishment Survey generates the total employment data you're referring to.

Employers could fire literally everyone, yet if all of those former employees indicate they're looking for work, exactly zero people will have "left the labor force." Similarly, if everyone fired all of their informal, unreported employees, unemployment figures would go up, but total employment wouldn't budge.

You appear to be confused about the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey. They don't attempt to measure the same things, nor does the BLS "mostly" use one or the other. Unemployment data comes from the Household Survey. Period. The Establishment Survey does indeed seek more respondents, but that only means they "mostly" spend more time obtaining that data than the various unemployment rates.

There's no need to answer your question: people that "work under the table" haven't left the labor force. They say they're working when polled for the survey.

So, wait, you're saying that when people lie when responding to surveys, it makes the surveys inaccurate? Woah.

People who work "under the table" absolutely say they have jobs. If a respondent is so feebleminded that they actually believe the BLS is using the surveys to enforce federal labor law, they're almost certainly too stupid to actually hold the job you believe they're lying about

If only socioeconomic statistics agreed with you.

Nobody says there's *no* social mobility.

So you *don't* think it's in the strategic interests of the United States to maintain the illusion of social mobility? Congratulation on your own, but that's hardly the norm.

You're forgetting about the value of investing in maintaining the illusion of meritocracy and social mobility.

Keep in mind that 18 years of interest-only payments *does* make the taxpayer whole- the 2.05% (minimum) profitable interest rate surcharge above the government's own borrowing costs means that we're just lining our own pockets if we ask for payments after that.

(Yes, the 18-year figure assumes stable Treasury interest rates and takes a few other reasonable liberties, but it's not off in principle.)

Maybe we should stop asking students to pay interest rates at least 2.05% and as much as 4.6% *over* the cost of money to the government and *then* see whether we still have "tremendous delinquency rates."

But I dunno, maybe you easily pay a 4.6% federal tax on the balance of your mortgage and can't understand why that might be an issue for others.

I'll admit I'm confused. Are you blaming those students for the content of legislation passed by a Congress they had no hand in electing? Or are you saying only students that *do* pay their loans should be covering the losses on those that don't, not the taxpaying voters that elected the legislators that created and modified the loan program?

I learned long ago not to debate legal concepts with rank amateurs, let alone poorly-informed ones. But I am willing to point out the most obvious and Google-verifiable error in your post: the "already-ended" emergency ended a whole 81 days before the Supreme Court's decision in Biden v. Nebraska. But not before oral arguments. Not before briefing. Not before appeals to the 5th and 8th Circuit. Not before district court rulings. And, most importantly, not before the rulemaking at issue. You might also note that, irrespective of the Senate's cloture rules, by the time there was a single court ruling against Biden, his party no longer "held both houses."

Necessary? I thought we were talking about what was legal. My mistake.

And you clearly misremember the legal posture of suspended payments and interest.

What lenders? What companies? Do you mean the federal government and its literal contracted servicers?