5 ms·

> I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...) There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people l

> I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...) There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual. > Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt. It is an investment by some one. If free, it's an investment by society. If suddenly I'm paying for Joey's college, I'd feel I get to tell him to study engineering (or some other high-paying field) rather than poetry, as it's my nickel on which he's going. That's society's right when it pays, because the return would be payed later on in taxes to fund my retirement, in your vision of how this works. In any case, this is always an investment. Putting in years of a life is investment for the student; tuition is an investment for whoever pays. How else do you justify spending many thousands of my tax dollars to let some kid study what's "interesting" and go to parties? Why ought I to pay for that? > Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized test, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments. How do you propose to force this? The best schools are private. Also, standardized tests are a poor predictor of future success [0] [1] [2] [3]. Finally, the idea of one "all-or-nothing" test for which you can just cram for a few months (while slacking off for the rest of high school) is silly. > Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar. Depends which part you're in. The best is always competitive. Also, I thought many teachers (and definitely profs) posted grade lists publicly? Here's the core problem: every one keeps demanding an economic system that provides not liberty but essentially "freedom from hardship". Every one just wants to eat, and have health care, and a house, and vacation, and retirement, and a stable, comfortable, life. No economic system can guarantee you that. We have limited wants and unlimited needs. Population is growing, and may well out-pace economic growth. Many issues simply cannot be directly controlled by governments. Voting for utopia usually leads to disaster. [0]: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-31-what-happens-when-standardized-test-scores-don-t-reflect-student-growth https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-31-what-happens-when-st... [1]: https://news.psu.edu/story/165456/2010/08/23/standardized-tests-not-always-best-indicator-success https://news.psu.edu/story/165456/2010/08/23/standardized-te... [2]: https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-score-is-what-predicts-future-success/ https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-sco... [3]: https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/03/test_scores_arent_always_an_ac.html https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/03/test_scores_arent_a...

alkonaut 7y ago
> There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual. I fully expect retirement age to increase. As you say it has to of expected lifespan increases. > The best schools are private That may be part of the problem in some countries, yes. They aren’t here. > It’s an investment by someone So is primary school. Most countries say some level of basic education should be guaranteed by public funding. Including higher education too isn’t that much of a stretch. It’s very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education. I don’t think a society with a good pension system, publicly funded higher education and healthcare is a society “without hardship”, but it’s one where illness doesn’t risk meaning financial ruin, for example.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > I fully expect retirement age to increase. Glad we're agreed there. Of course, the next big challenge will be keeping people not just alive but in good health past age sixty. Many times people will live their last twenty years with, say, a bad back which could prevent work. Stem cells seem promising (especially as the price drops), as do three-dimensionally-printed parts. >> The best schools are private. > That may be part of the problem in some countries, yes. They aren't here. Where is "here"? For reference, in America, the best private schools can cost almost as much as the salary of a minimum-wage worker. That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula. I could see working toward better public schools, absolutely, but I don't see putting that kind of money toward every student. How would public school compete in such a scenario? >> It's an investment by someone So is primary school. Most countries sya some level of basic education should be guaranteed by public funding. Including higher education isn't that much of a stretch. It's very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education. It is that much of a stretch. Free college is eight t-t-t-trillion dollars over the first ten years [0]. That doesn't even factor in that quality will likely go down. The government isn't going to hand you an expense account for today's college choices, it's going to create new, lower-quality colleges. A liberal-arts education is expensive because it entails years of studying things that aren't professionally relevant - an IoT dev doesn't need to read Plutarch. That kind of thing isn't justifiable from a "societal investment" point-of-view. P.S. there's also Sanders' plan to cancel the existing one point four trillion dollars outstanding. > It's very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education. You're looking at people who attend college and enter the upper half of society, and attempting to say, "If everyone goes to college, everyone can enter the upper half of society!" Unfortunately, it's just that - a half. There are only so many jobs of that sort; college makes people more competitive applicants. You won't necessarily create more by creating more people who go to college. > I don't think a society with a good pension system, publicly funded higher education and healthcare is a society "without hardship", but it's one where illness doesn't mean risking financial ruin. You said "publicly funded", not "run by the government". Again, that plays into the mistaken impression that every one gets what the middle class and up get now, just paid by the government. That's never how it works. And you are somewhat looking to establish "freedom from want" to an extent; you basically want to cover the first two levels of Maslow. Everything on top of that is personal and petty. [0]: https://www.dailywire.com/news/34176/someone-calculated-how-much-democratic-socialists-emily-zanotti https://www.dailywire.com/news/34176/someone-calculated-how-.... (I know this source has a definitive right bias, but it references a left-wing external source and, for whatever reason, had better SEO than said source).

alkonaut 7y ago

> There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual. I fully expect retirement age to increase. As you say it has to of expected lifespan increases. > The best schools are private That may be part of the problem in some countries, yes. They aren’t here. > It’s an investment by someone So is primary school. Most countries say some level of basic education should be guaranteed by public funding. Including higher education too isn’t that much of a stretch. It’s very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education. I don’t think a society with a good pension system, publicly funded higher education and healthcare is a society “without hardship”, but it’s one where illness doesn’t risk meaning financial ruin, for example.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
big_chungus 7y ago
> I fully expect retirement age to increase. Glad we're agreed there. Of course, the next big challenge will be keeping people not just alive but in good health past age sixty. Many times people will live their last twenty years with, say, a bad back which could prevent work. Stem cells seem promising (especially as the price drops), as do three-dimensionally-printed parts. >> The best schools are private. > That may be part of the problem in some countries, yes. They aren't here. Where is "here"? For reference, in America, the best private schools can cost almost as much as the salary of a minimum-wage worker. That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula. I could see working toward better public schools, absolutely, but I don't see putting that kind of money toward every student. How would public school compete in such a scenario? >> It's an investment by someone So is primary school. Most countries sya some level of basic education should be guaranteed by public funding. Including higher education isn't that much of a stretch. It's very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education. It is that much of a stretch. Free college is eight t-t-t-trillion dollars over the first ten years [0]. That doesn't even factor in that quality will likely go down. The government isn't going to hand you an expense account for today's college choices, it's going to create new, lower-quality colleges. A liberal-arts education is expensive because it entails years of studying things that aren't professionally relevant - an IoT dev doesn't need to read Plutarch. That kind of thing isn't justifiable from a "societal investment" point-of-view. P.S. there's also Sanders' plan to cancel the existing one point four trillion dollars outstanding. > It's very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education. You're looking at people who attend college and enter the upper half of society, and attempting to say, "If everyone goes to college, everyone can enter the upper half of society!" Unfortunately, it's just that - a half. There are only so many jobs of that sort; college makes people more competitive applicants. You won't necessarily create more by creating more people who go to college. > I don't think a society with a good pension system, publicly funded higher education and healthcare is a society "without hardship", but it's one where illness doesn't mean risking financial ruin. You said "publicly funded", not "run by the government". Again, that plays into the mistaken impression that every one gets what the middle class and up get now, just paid by the government. That's never how it works. And you are somewhat looking to establish "freedom from want" to an extent; you basically want to cover the first two levels of Maslow. Everything on top of that is personal and petty. [0]: https://www.dailywire.com/news/34176/someone-calculated-how-much-democratic-socialists-emily-zanotti https://www.dailywire.com/news/34176/someone-calculated-how-.... (I know this source has a definitive right bias, but it references a left-wing external source and, for whatever reason, had better SEO than said source).