3 ms·

I think HN has missed one of Greenspun's points - that we always talk about "investing in our children's future" but never actually consider whether the investm

I think HN has missed one of Greenspun's points - that we always talk about "investing in our children's future" but never actually consider whether the investment (usually of public money, i.e. tax dollars for K-12, then crushing debt from the parents for college) actually stands the test of financial sense.

sprout 16y ago
No, I think that's specifically the point I take issue with. An educated polity is a social necessity in a democracy - and we are failing at creating an educated polity. So there's no question to me that educating people stands the test of financial sense. It's a question apart from finance, and essential to our future. However, I do think it's fair to ask whether the money being spent is more than is necessary to properly educate our citizens.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Rather, I would say HN is calling Greenspun on the point that "investing in our children's future" shouldn't be treated as an individaul economic decision but rather as a social decision. For the individual trying to educate their children, the motivator has historically been the effort to move up in social class but by extension, it's an effort to give the children a richer and more diverse life with more economic opportunity being only a fraction of this. But education has also traditionally been a priority for society rather than simply individuals. Theoretically, the US as a whole benefits if tomorrow more-skilled US workers are paid the same amount for doing the same job than less-skilled US workers were doing yesterday. This works better in practice if we're talking about either auto workers or programmers rather than about fast food workers.
houseabsolute 16y ago
I'm calling Greenspun on the fact that, if you want to make the argument that the investment is bad, using ridiculously overstated made up numbers is not an honest way to do it.

sprout 16y ago

No, I think that's specifically the point I take issue with. An educated polity is a social necessity in a democracy - and we are failing at creating an educated polity. So there's no question to me that educating people stands the test of financial sense. It's a question apart from finance, and essential to our future. However, I do think it's fair to ask whether the money being spent is more than is necessary to properly educate our citizens.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Rather, I would say HN is calling Greenspun on the point that "investing in our children's future" shouldn't be treated as an individaul economic decision but rather as a social decision. For the individual trying to educate their children, the motivator has historically been the effort to move up in social class but by extension, it's an effort to give the children a richer and more diverse life with more economic opportunity being only a fraction of this. But education has also traditionally been a priority for society rather than simply individuals. Theoretically, the US as a whole benefits if tomorrow more-skilled US workers are paid the same amount for doing the same job than less-skilled US workers were doing yesterday. This works better in practice if we're talking about either auto workers or programmers rather than about fast food workers.

houseabsolute 16y ago

I'm calling Greenspun on the fact that, if you want to make the argument that the investment is bad, using ridiculously overstated made up numbers is not an honest way to do it.