4 ms·

> I realize on HN "defense spending" is the prime evil, but that money also supports (if I had to swag it) hundreds of thousands of US jobs. If we spent that

> I realize on HN "defense spending" is the prime evil, but that money also supports (if I had to swag it) hundreds of thousands of US jobs. If we spent that same money in a different industry it would support hundreds of thousands of jobs there too. At the extreme we could also spend this money paying people to dig holes and full them and still support just as many jobs. As a country we have to stop thinking of govt spending as a flat cost and instead get back to thinking of it as an investment. What does this money gain the country and when? Are we efficiently allocating our capital to maximise our return. When consider at the margin, will additional investment/production in area X get us better return than an additional dollar in Y? In my opinion education has one of the highest returns available to a govt. And a pittance of the cost compared to other high return options.

joe_the_user 9y ago
In fact, education could provide more jobs since it's expenses are mostly modestly provide workers whereas a large portion of defense spending goes to materials, highly paid specialists and contractor profits. Of course, we would also need to cull the large mass of education pseudo-specialists who would want to suck up those Federal dollars. But if we could somehow move spending from defense to education, we might also be able to remove the parasitic consultant-layer on top of this field.
rayiner 9y ago
> In my opinion education has one of the highest returns available to a govt. And a pittance of the cost compared to other high return options. Studies repeatedly show that spending is uncorrlated with student outcomes: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-more-money-fix-americas-schools http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-more....
- MarkMc 9y ago
  > Studies repeatedly show that spending is uncorrlated with student outcomes That may be true of education budget in general, but what about these Oklahoma schools that are only open 4 days a week? Would boosting these school budgets be worthwhile?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Cutting to 4 days is a political statement, not a rational reaction to a budget shortfall. Faculty salaries make up the vast majority of school operating expenses. These teachers are not getting paid 20% less to work 4 days a week. So the savings are from ancillary expenditures (electricity, hourly workers, materials, etc.) and are going to be a lot less than 20% of total costs. The way a rational private organization would respond to such decreased revenue would be to have layoffs and increase class sizes. (While there is some evidence that smaller classes are on the whole better, we're be talking about a pretty small difference here, in a range where the expected effects would be small.)
    - c256 9y ago
      Oklahoma schools have been laying off teachers and increasing class sizes for many, many years. Typical class sizes there now are already 30-40% larger than the legal (state law, which has itself been adjusted upwards several times) limit. In most of these places, there are 3-5 class groups in a cohort (that is, there are 3-5 4th grade teachers). Even aside from the terrible impact on teacher attention, these classrooms have already run out of space to hold students -- students are already sharing desks that are explicitly designed for one student. Laying off a teacher and redistributing their 26+ students to the remaining 2-4 classrooms doesn't work any more.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  The article you link to is not so unequivocal: "While the money in Camden, N.J., has led to relatively little academic progress, our stories from North Carolina, Indiana and Massachusetts offer a compelling counterpoint to the idea that money doesn't really matter. So, too, do a pair of recent studies that look not at one state but at many where parents, activists and school leaders from low-income districts sued and won increases in school funding."

joe_the_user 9y ago

In fact, education could provide more jobs since it's expenses are mostly modestly provide workers whereas a large portion of defense spending goes to materials, highly paid specialists and contractor profits. Of course, we would also need to cull the large mass of education pseudo-specialists who would want to suck up those Federal dollars. But if we could somehow move spending from defense to education, we might also be able to remove the parasitic consultant-layer on top of this field.

rayiner 9y ago

> In my opinion education has one of the highest returns available to a govt. And a pittance of the cost compared to other high return options. Studies repeatedly show that spending is uncorrlated with student outcomes: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-more-money-fix-americas-schools http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/25/468157856/can-more....

MarkMc 9y ago
> Studies repeatedly show that spending is uncorrlated with student outcomes That may be true of education budget in general, but what about these Oklahoma schools that are only open 4 days a week? Would boosting these school budgets be worthwhile?
- rayiner 9y ago
  Cutting to 4 days is a political statement, not a rational reaction to a budget shortfall. Faculty salaries make up the vast majority of school operating expenses. These teachers are not getting paid 20% less to work 4 days a week. So the savings are from ancillary expenditures (electricity, hourly workers, materials, etc.) and are going to be a lot less than 20% of total costs. The way a rational private organization would respond to such decreased revenue would be to have layoffs and increase class sizes. (While there is some evidence that smaller classes are on the whole better, we're be talking about a pretty small difference here, in a range where the expected effects would be small.)
  - c256 9y ago
    Oklahoma schools have been laying off teachers and increasing class sizes for many, many years. Typical class sizes there now are already 30-40% larger than the legal (state law, which has itself been adjusted upwards several times) limit. In most of these places, there are 3-5 class groups in a cohort (that is, there are 3-5 4th grade teachers). Even aside from the terrible impact on teacher attention, these classrooms have already run out of space to hold students -- students are already sharing desks that are explicitly designed for one student. Laying off a teacher and redistributing their 26+ students to the remaining 2-4 classrooms doesn't work any more.
MarkMc 9y ago
The article you link to is not so unequivocal: "While the money in Camden, N.J., has led to relatively little academic progress, our stories from North Carolina, Indiana and Massachusetts offer a compelling counterpoint to the idea that money doesn't really matter. So, too, do a pair of recent studies that look not at one state but at many where parents, activists and school leaders from low-income districts sued and won increases in school funding."