4 ms·

Yes and no. I definitely feel where you're coming from. When I was in university I marvelled at the kids studying liberal arts. I thought it was a crazy extrav

Yes and no. I definitely feel where you're coming from. When I was in university I marvelled at the kids studying liberal arts. I thought it was a crazy extravagance to spend 4+ years and tens of thousands of dollars on something that had no evident financial return. At least I was getting an engineering degree that would pay the bills someday and I thought of the arts kids as subsisting on handouts from their affluent parents, freed by wealth from having to worry about ever making a living. But it's also a product of our user-pay educational model in North America. In many developed countries, tuition is free and students even receive a stipend to pay their living expenses. So if we assume for a moment that it is indeed possible to 'broaden the mind' in university, it is not the exclusive preserve of the privileged since in these more egalitarian societies everyone has access to it. And now I think that may not be such a bad thing.

scarface74 8y ago
Nothing is ever “free”. How are you going to convince the middle class family to subsidize someone else’s “liberal arts” degree when that family is struggling themselves? Why should my taxes go toward paying someone else’s overpriced tutition? I graduated from high school and went to the local state college, stayed at home, and three years after graduating, I was making just as much as people sitting beside me who were mired in debt because they paid as much for one year of school as I paid for all four - without debt.
- geomark 8y ago
  Of course you are correct, it's not "free". I always chuckle when I hear about "free" education, "free" healthcare, etc. Somebody is paying for it. It might not be you, at least not at this moment. But if you ever make any money you will be paying for someone else's education. And maybe you are ok with that, improving society and all, assuming you believe what they are learning in university actually does that.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > I always chuckle when I hear about "free" education, "free" healthcare, etc. Somebody is paying for it. That's because you probably choose to misinterpret what is meant. If you genuinely don't know, I find this quite astonishing, but let me explain; As someone with "free" healthcare as a citizen of an EU country, I never think it is free as in literally costs nothing and nor do my left-wing American friends advocating for "free". It's "free" at the point of use, paid via our tax dollars, to which I contribute. The U.S. spends more on its current healthcare than the "free" one would cost them. You can think of "free" healthcare as giving you freedom from being sick, rather than in terms of cost. Would you rather spend money on "free" healthcare or tanks? Because it's going to be one of these.
    - geomark 8y ago
      I suppose you might convince yourself to think of it that way. As long as you don't mind the fact that you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost. A certain amount of that would be fine with me since I do feel a duty to support the less fortunate, although being forced to do it and having it done by a large and inefficient bureaucracy makes me resist at every opportunity. I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. And I prefer to put the money directly into the hands of people whom I know need it, which I do.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free In every system, be it the justice system, a social system, or the free market, you're going to have a percentage of people taking advantage of it. That is no argument for not having it in the first place. That's an argument for reasonable laws and regulations. As for the people who do not temporarily have a job due to say family circumstances, or even permanently due to illness or disability, I have no problems whatsoever with it being "free" for them. > because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost You do the exact same thing. Your taxes do not solely pay for the roads and bridges you cross on your way to work, nor the police or firefighters that are on call to help you out, not for the regulators that ensure the food you buy is safe... In some way or another, we're mutually subsidizing each other somewhat via taxes. And taxes will be collected. So the only question is where they should go? Be it private military contractors, or helping someone with their cancer treatment? I'd opt for the second option every time. > I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. No, you just like to tell yourself that to feel better. As part of a nation state, there's a whole bunch of not "pay you own way" that you rely on every single day. I realize why you'd need to convince yourself that you're entirely "your own man", but that doesn't change the fact that is it false. There are plenty of places in the world where you can pretty much opt out of the system and go at it all yourself. I suspect you wouldn't like it that much, but it exists. There is a whole other discussion as to whether taxes are the right way to do it and what debt are we really paying for, which is interesting in itself, but my argument is that assuming taxes will be collected anyway, at least I'd prefer to spend them on things like healthcare, education etc., than say excessive military spending. P.S. Even posting your comment here on HN required resources that you did not pay for, (servers, programmers, electricity, free software).
- em-bee 8y ago
  they aren't the ones financing it because those that struggle to make ends meet are paying much less taxes than those with better income. and with what little they do contribute, their own kids too get the opportunity to go to university.
- eigenvector 8y ago
  This is not a hypothetical, it's a system that already exists in several countries. Why do people accept it? My answer is in two parts. First, in developed countries very little of the overall tax burden is shouldered by struggling families. Whether we're talking about the USA or Finland, the highest income earners pay most of the income tax and the poor hardly anything at all. So unless we're talking about people who are just 'San Francisco poor' (i.e. have high incomes but feel poor because they earn less than their neighbours or friends), these are the people who will be subsidized not the ones subsidizing. Struggling families, rather than being the ones put upon by universal social programs, are the ones who benefit most. For instance, in the USA the top 1% of income earners pay a greater share of total income taxes than the bottom 90% (39% to 29.4% respectively).[1] Second, one constant among countries with either zero tuition or very low tuition is post-secondary education sector is almost entirely public. There are no overpriced schools, universities regardless of their quality do not profit from their operations so there is no distinction between the state college you attended and the $50k/year private schools. And because universities can't increase their revenue by simply ratcheting up tuition, it's much harder for administrators to wake up one day and decide they should all get a raise paid by for the students which is a form of cost disease that is endemic in North American universities. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-20...

scarface74 8y ago

Nothing is ever “free”. How are you going to convince the middle class family to subsidize someone else’s “liberal arts” degree when that family is struggling themselves? Why should my taxes go toward paying someone else’s overpriced tutition? I graduated from high school and went to the local state college, stayed at home, and three years after graduating, I was making just as much as people sitting beside me who were mired in debt because they paid as much for one year of school as I paid for all four - without debt.

geomark 8y ago
Of course you are correct, it's not "free". I always chuckle when I hear about "free" education, "free" healthcare, etc. Somebody is paying for it. It might not be you, at least not at this moment. But if you ever make any money you will be paying for someone else's education. And maybe you are ok with that, improving society and all, assuming you believe what they are learning in university actually does that.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > I always chuckle when I hear about "free" education, "free" healthcare, etc. Somebody is paying for it. That's because you probably choose to misinterpret what is meant. If you genuinely don't know, I find this quite astonishing, but let me explain; As someone with "free" healthcare as a citizen of an EU country, I never think it is free as in literally costs nothing and nor do my left-wing American friends advocating for "free". It's "free" at the point of use, paid via our tax dollars, to which I contribute. The U.S. spends more on its current healthcare than the "free" one would cost them. You can think of "free" healthcare as giving you freedom from being sick, rather than in terms of cost. Would you rather spend money on "free" healthcare or tanks? Because it's going to be one of these.
  - geomark 8y ago
    I suppose you might convince yourself to think of it that way. As long as you don't mind the fact that you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost. A certain amount of that would be fine with me since I do feel a duty to support the less fortunate, although being forced to do it and having it done by a large and inefficient bureaucracy makes me resist at every opportunity. I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. And I prefer to put the money directly into the hands of people whom I know need it, which I do.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free In every system, be it the justice system, a social system, or the free market, you're going to have a percentage of people taking advantage of it. That is no argument for not having it in the first place. That's an argument for reasonable laws and regulations. As for the people who do not temporarily have a job due to say family circumstances, or even permanently due to illness or disability, I have no problems whatsoever with it being "free" for them. > because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost You do the exact same thing. Your taxes do not solely pay for the roads and bridges you cross on your way to work, nor the police or firefighters that are on call to help you out, not for the regulators that ensure the food you buy is safe... In some way or another, we're mutually subsidizing each other somewhat via taxes. And taxes will be collected. So the only question is where they should go? Be it private military contractors, or helping someone with their cancer treatment? I'd opt for the second option every time. > I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. No, you just like to tell yourself that to feel better. As part of a nation state, there's a whole bunch of not "pay you own way" that you rely on every single day. I realize why you'd need to convince yourself that you're entirely "your own man", but that doesn't change the fact that is it false. There are plenty of places in the world where you can pretty much opt out of the system and go at it all yourself. I suspect you wouldn't like it that much, but it exists. There is a whole other discussion as to whether taxes are the right way to do it and what debt are we really paying for, which is interesting in itself, but my argument is that assuming taxes will be collected anyway, at least I'd prefer to spend them on things like healthcare, education etc., than say excessive military spending. P.S. Even posting your comment here on HN required resources that you did not pay for, (servers, programmers, electricity, free software).
em-bee 8y ago
they aren't the ones financing it because those that struggle to make ends meet are paying much less taxes than those with better income. and with what little they do contribute, their own kids too get the opportunity to go to university.
eigenvector 8y ago
This is not a hypothetical, it's a system that already exists in several countries. Why do people accept it? My answer is in two parts. First, in developed countries very little of the overall tax burden is shouldered by struggling families. Whether we're talking about the USA or Finland, the highest income earners pay most of the income tax and the poor hardly anything at all. So unless we're talking about people who are just 'San Francisco poor' (i.e. have high incomes but feel poor because they earn less than their neighbours or friends), these are the people who will be subsidized not the ones subsidizing. Struggling families, rather than being the ones put upon by universal social programs, are the ones who benefit most. For instance, in the USA the top 1% of income earners pay a greater share of total income taxes than the bottom 90% (39% to 29.4% respectively).[1] Second, one constant among countries with either zero tuition or very low tuition is post-secondary education sector is almost entirely public. There are no overpriced schools, universities regardless of their quality do not profit from their operations so there is no distinction between the state college you attended and the $50k/year private schools. And because universities can't increase their revenue by simply ratcheting up tuition, it's much harder for administrators to wake up one day and decide they should all get a raise paid by for the students which is a form of cost disease that is endemic in North American universities. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-20...