5 ms·

Done right, educating people should lead to them being more productive and producing a richer society. Done right, it's an investment that produces more wealth

Done right, educating people should lead to them being more productive and producing a richer society. Done right, it's an investment that produces more wealth than it costs. Somewhere there's a point where it costs more than it produces, dependent on how much time the person will spend being a more-educated person before they die, and I expect also dependent on the precise education being imparted, but I'd be surprised if that line was where the free education cut-off currently is.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
It seems like a lot of the excess value will be captured by the person who attended college, if that's true aren't they the very person to pay for it? If it isn't why bother with it at all?
- EliRivers 7y ago
  Done right, they produce more wealth and some of that wealth goes to society. It's not just that they pay more tax; they also simply produce more wealth, which is not a zero sum game. Over a lifetime, society benefits and the person benefits. Everyone wins. Done right. Stretching the discussion a little, we could ask the same question about all education. Why is any of it free? But the benefits to the United States (for example) of almost everyone being able to read and write (for example) are incredible. If a large proportion of the US population had dropped out of school before being able to read and write (because of the cost), the US would be extraordinarily less wealthy. Everyone would lose out.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  This isn't the kind of value they could use to build a big castle and cut themselves off from society. Education isn't like giving someone money - they still have to go out and use that education to make money. It's the society at large that reaps benefits of an educated person - through more specialized work being done, and through better social interactions.
mrep 7y ago
> Done right, educating people should lead to them being more productive and producing a richer society. Define done right. General education does have positive externalities and we provide that for everyone up to the end of high school. However, college and beyond is about specializing. There are many majors that have way to many students majoring in them only to end up getting a job out of college that does not use any of the skills they learned in college. I do not see how subsidizing those students would be beneficial.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  In this particular case, it is a somewhat circular argument. Identify education that would benefit society. Give it away for free. Watch society become more wealthy. Everybody wins. I'm not convinced that the list of "education that would benefit society" is as limited as the current STEM obsessives would have us believe, but it's a starting point; it also doesn't have to be just university education. Nationwide shortage of electricians, for example? No worries. Free electrician education ahoy. The only problem is that this practical, pragmatic approach violates some people's morals. Similarly to how the US could have a far cheaper, far more effective corrections system, but that be morally objectionable for too many people. On a personal note, I'm not convinced that the end of high school is the correct cut-off point for free education (particularly given that the US has become a far more technological society and economy over the last century), but I don't have any evidence for that. It would seem something of a suspicious coincidence.
m0zg 7y ago
Done right there'd be a quota on professions which have negative ROI, i.e. for English majors and philosophers. Until that's in place, "free" college will not have the results you desire and will be a money sink on a truly staggering scale. Besides, even if college is free, room and board is most certainly not free.
cyrksoft 7y ago
What do you know what's right? To know what is right you need to see the future and I highly doubt anyone can. Let people decide by themselves. If they get in debt to study some "useless" degree it's their fault. The rest of the tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for their mistakes.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Done right, maybe. But in this case, it would be done by Congress. I don't care which party you favor. Viewing the institution as a whole, do you think that Congress could do this right? I don't.
maxerickson 7y ago
I'd like to see more public spending on education in the US, but I think this explains why college is getting more expensive. 40-50 years ago, investing in education carried huge returns, because cheaper college made people more likely to choose that path than to get a decent job right out of high school. Today, there's not as much need for public investment in education because the work force is already nearly over-educated, at least in terms of the numbers of people available for many jobs that have specific education requirements. We should make it real cheap to get educated as a doctor or nurse though (and most other medical stuff). Sure, they have great personal returns on their education now, but that's exactly what we want to erode, by flooding the market.
- bumby 7y ago
  Do you mean we want to erode doctor/nurse pay because that's what's causing high healthcare costs? It's been awhile since I worked in healthcare but I don't think primary care provider pay is high on the list of most impactful cost cutting improvements
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I think there aren't enough doctors to make institutions compete (much) for business. It's not so much that they take home an inordinate share of healthcare spending, it's that the market is severely supply constrained.
    - bumby 7y ago
      My experience is that doctors are not the primary bottleneck but the system is rather inefficient in many other aspects. I think if you add more people to a bad system you tend to make things worse. Better to fix the process rather than throw more (poorly managed) resources at it
philwelch 7y ago
If this were the case, student loans would be a wise and reasonable investment for the typical 18-year-old. This has not borne out.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  They're not, because of the inflated amount of money US college now requires.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Indicating that it's already exceeded the point of diminishing returns, which is a sufficient counterargument to subsidizing it.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

It seems like a lot of the excess value will be captured by the person who attended college, if that's true aren't they the very person to pay for it? If it isn't why bother with it at all?

EliRivers 7y ago
Done right, they produce more wealth and some of that wealth goes to society. It's not just that they pay more tax; they also simply produce more wealth, which is not a zero sum game. Over a lifetime, society benefits and the person benefits. Everyone wins. Done right. Stretching the discussion a little, we could ask the same question about all education. Why is any of it free? But the benefits to the United States (for example) of almost everyone being able to read and write (for example) are incredible. If a large proportion of the US population had dropped out of school before being able to read and write (because of the cost), the US would be extraordinarily less wealthy. Everyone would lose out.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
This isn't the kind of value they could use to build a big castle and cut themselves off from society. Education isn't like giving someone money - they still have to go out and use that education to make money. It's the society at large that reaps benefits of an educated person - through more specialized work being done, and through better social interactions.

mrep 7y ago

> Done right, educating people should lead to them being more productive and producing a richer society. Define done right. General education does have positive externalities and we provide that for everyone up to the end of high school. However, college and beyond is about specializing. There are many majors that have way to many students majoring in them only to end up getting a job out of college that does not use any of the skills they learned in college. I do not see how subsidizing those students would be beneficial.

EliRivers 7y ago
In this particular case, it is a somewhat circular argument. Identify education that would benefit society. Give it away for free. Watch society become more wealthy. Everybody wins. I'm not convinced that the list of "education that would benefit society" is as limited as the current STEM obsessives would have us believe, but it's a starting point; it also doesn't have to be just university education. Nationwide shortage of electricians, for example? No worries. Free electrician education ahoy. The only problem is that this practical, pragmatic approach violates some people's morals. Similarly to how the US could have a far cheaper, far more effective corrections system, but that be morally objectionable for too many people. On a personal note, I'm not convinced that the end of high school is the correct cut-off point for free education (particularly given that the US has become a far more technological society and economy over the last century), but I don't have any evidence for that. It would seem something of a suspicious coincidence.

m0zg 7y ago

Done right there'd be a quota on professions which have negative ROI, i.e. for English majors and philosophers. Until that's in place, "free" college will not have the results you desire and will be a money sink on a truly staggering scale. Besides, even if college is free, room and board is most certainly not free.

cyrksoft 7y ago

What do you know what's right? To know what is right you need to see the future and I highly doubt anyone can. Let people decide by themselves. If they get in debt to study some "useless" degree it's their fault. The rest of the tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for their mistakes.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Done right, maybe. But in this case, it would be done by Congress. I don't care which party you favor. Viewing the institution as a whole, do you think that Congress could do this right? I don't.

maxerickson 7y ago

I'd like to see more public spending on education in the US, but I think this explains why college is getting more expensive. 40-50 years ago, investing in education carried huge returns, because cheaper college made people more likely to choose that path than to get a decent job right out of high school. Today, there's not as much need for public investment in education because the work force is already nearly over-educated, at least in terms of the numbers of people available for many jobs that have specific education requirements. We should make it real cheap to get educated as a doctor or nurse though (and most other medical stuff). Sure, they have great personal returns on their education now, but that's exactly what we want to erode, by flooding the market.

bumby 7y ago
Do you mean we want to erode doctor/nurse pay because that's what's causing high healthcare costs? It's been awhile since I worked in healthcare but I don't think primary care provider pay is high on the list of most impactful cost cutting improvements
- maxerickson 7y ago
  I think there aren't enough doctors to make institutions compete (much) for business. It's not so much that they take home an inordinate share of healthcare spending, it's that the market is severely supply constrained.
  - bumby 7y ago
    My experience is that doctors are not the primary bottleneck but the system is rather inefficient in many other aspects. I think if you add more people to a bad system you tend to make things worse. Better to fix the process rather than throw more (poorly managed) resources at it

philwelch 7y ago

If this were the case, student loans would be a wise and reasonable investment for the typical 18-year-old. This has not borne out.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
They're not, because of the inflated amount of money US college now requires.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Indicating that it's already exceeded the point of diminishing returns, which is a sufficient counterargument to subsidizing it.