10 ms·

>...make healthcare and education free-or-nearly-so... Free for who?

komali2 8y ago
Literally everyone. Imagine the tax income down the line if every citizen that wanted a high-training-required career could get that career. Imagine the burden reduction on welfare.
- colemannugent 8y ago
  >Literally everyone. and >Imagine the tax income down the line... are contradictory. A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending leads to more productivity and the added cost is offset by the increase in taxes due to the productivity gain". Or more simply: "Education and welfare are good investments". Now we can have a serious conversation about the economic impacts of this kind of investment. But to market it as free is irresponsible. It it not free. At best we get more out than we put in, but by definition we must put in something. That was the point of my original comment. Everything has a cost. Even an investment with a nearly guaranteed return comes at a cost and has a certain amount of risk associated with it.
  - komali2 8y ago
    It can be "free" if budgets are rearranged out of the insanity they are in now. Imagine slashing DoD funding in half. I don't think taxes would have to go up a penny to provide free education then. Other than that, yes, I agree with you in using investment terminology.
    - colemannugent 8y ago
      I also agree that current budget allocations are insane. Maybe if we stopped fighting so many wars we could make more progress here at home. Another assumption that you make is that the problem with the US education system is a lack of funding. I don't think this is the case.
      - komali2 8y ago
        I think we can both point to a lot of inefficiencies that need to be fixed, but given that local public schools essentially depend on the property value of the surrounding area to determine quality, I do think funding is an issue. I make the argument that the federal government should funnel shitloads more money to local schools. I think we can have that while also auditing and cleaning up whatever ineffective messes money is being spent on by the doe now.
- shard972 8y ago
  What about the people who are sub 100 IQ (namely about half the population) who don't really have the capacity to work in a highly trained job? You seem to just assume if we give people free stuff they will all go get PHD's. That's just simply a fantasy.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Or the people that don't want to, don't forget I didn't say "mandatory higher education," I said "free." It already is free for twelve years so it seems silly to think slapping on another 2-6 would be some massive burden against the expected returns. For those that don't want it or can't test into it because they literally are too stupid (this is after fixing inequal access to early education), there's no associated cost. They just to to work, same as it was before.
    - shard972 8y ago
      > For those that don't want it or can't test into it because they literally are too stupid (this is after fixing inequal access to early education), there's no associated cost. They just to to work, same as it was before. I think you will find the IQ benefits of education itself is not really that large. I could be wrong but it seems like scientists are looking more into diet these days as bigger influencers than quality education. Which is to say, of course there is contrast between a child who never goes to school and is just left to leisure around the house until they are adults to one that goes to a quality school that are beyond simply a diet but that in western countries, diets could be a bigger reason for poorer socio-economic populations scoring lower on IQ tests. I think though that you would have to rebalance the culture when it comes to higher education before making it free because in countries like the USA, you already have too many people going to university and then going into non-skilled jobs despite the insane prices. Lowering the price to free is only going to increase that when many kids see college as an experience more than a critical education for a high end role.

Literally everyone. Imagine the tax income down the line if every citizen that wanted a high-training-required career could get that career. Imagine the burden reduction on welfare.

colemannugent 8y ago
>Literally everyone. and >Imagine the tax income down the line... are contradictory. A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending leads to more productivity and the added cost is offset by the increase in taxes due to the productivity gain". Or more simply: "Education and welfare are good investments". Now we can have a serious conversation about the economic impacts of this kind of investment. But to market it as free is irresponsible. It it not free. At best we get more out than we put in, but by definition we must put in something. That was the point of my original comment. Everything has a cost. Even an investment with a nearly guaranteed return comes at a cost and has a certain amount of risk associated with it.
- komali2 8y ago
  It can be "free" if budgets are rearranged out of the insanity they are in now. Imagine slashing DoD funding in half. I don't think taxes would have to go up a penny to provide free education then. Other than that, yes, I agree with you in using investment terminology.
  - colemannugent 8y ago
    I also agree that current budget allocations are insane. Maybe if we stopped fighting so many wars we could make more progress here at home. Another assumption that you make is that the problem with the US education system is a lack of funding. I don't think this is the case.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I think we can both point to a lot of inefficiencies that need to be fixed, but given that local public schools essentially depend on the property value of the surrounding area to determine quality, I do think funding is an issue. I make the argument that the federal government should funnel shitloads more money to local schools. I think we can have that while also auditing and cleaning up whatever ineffective messes money is being spent on by the doe now.
shard972 8y ago
What about the people who are sub 100 IQ (namely about half the population) who don't really have the capacity to work in a highly trained job? You seem to just assume if we give people free stuff they will all go get PHD's. That's just simply a fantasy.
- komali2 8y ago
  Or the people that don't want to, don't forget I didn't say "mandatory higher education," I said "free." It already is free for twelve years so it seems silly to think slapping on another 2-6 would be some massive burden against the expected returns. For those that don't want it or can't test into it because they literally are too stupid (this is after fixing inequal access to early education), there's no associated cost. They just to to work, same as it was before.
  - shard972 8y ago
    > For those that don't want it or can't test into it because they literally are too stupid (this is after fixing inequal access to early education), there's no associated cost. They just to to work, same as it was before. I think you will find the IQ benefits of education itself is not really that large. I could be wrong but it seems like scientists are looking more into diet these days as bigger influencers than quality education. Which is to say, of course there is contrast between a child who never goes to school and is just left to leisure around the house until they are adults to one that goes to a quality school that are beyond simply a diet but that in western countries, diets could be a bigger reason for poorer socio-economic populations scoring lower on IQ tests. I think though that you would have to rebalance the culture when it comes to higher education before making it free because in countries like the USA, you already have too many people going to university and then going into non-skilled jobs despite the insane prices. Lowering the price to free is only going to increase that when many kids see college as an experience more than a critical education for a high end role.