4 ms·

> 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 heal

> 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
> 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. "Here" is Sweden in this case, but there are similar examples. > You said "publicly funded", not "run by the government". That's a detail of implementation for both schools and healthcare. Interestingly, Sweden has a lot of private schools in 1-12 but few private higher educations. In both cases the funds are coming from public money, so the 1-12 schools are voucher based. > That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula. My kid's school (6y atm) is private. But I can't pay any more to get higher staff-to-student ratio in another school. The school gets the voucher for my kid so they have the same funds as every other school, public or private. If I want to spend money on my kids primary school I could buy an evening tutor of course (no one stops me) - but I basically you can't start a school where you accept money from parents to provide a more expensive education. The law says no fees can be charged for the education, nor for applications. Further it says that donations to schools are allowed but cannot influence education nor applications. > That kind of thing isn't justifiable from a "societal investment" point-of-view It's a fine balance. I want to spend tax money on having a varied group of people educated in arts etc. I think it's fine to pay tax money for someone else to study arts with absolutely no possibility of ever "repaying" society economically. The alternative is that those who can afford to study stuff that doesn't pay (i.e. those with family money) are those that can study those subjects. I don't think that's an objectively better situation to be in. > 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. Sure, but this is a political and ideological choice, such as "kids to low income parents should be as likely to end up with MD's as kids to high income parents". This isn't a practical choice. When I argue that publicly funded higher education is good, I'm arguing ideologically, not "practically". It won't be a more efficient society. It might improve our Gini but it won't necessarily improve our GDP, and so on. Also: it's not like half the population has to du menial jobs and half can do white collar jobs. We used to have effectively 100% farmers just a century ago. Then an industrial society just 50 years ago. Not everyone can have a high tech job, but the variation of jobs in society is fluent and very much depends on the education level of the population. It's not a zero sum game where the number of qualified jobs is fixed. > And you are somewhat looking to establish "freedom from want" Because the drive to provide healthcare and education for myself and my family is somehow a positive "force" that drives society and the economy (perhaps I misunderstood)? Shouldn't that be evident in statistics, e.g. that happiness/quality of life indicators are somehow higher the more "want" there is? All I can see is that they seem...lower

alkonaut 7y ago

> 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. "Here" is Sweden in this case, but there are similar examples. > You said "publicly funded", not "run by the government". That's a detail of implementation for both schools and healthcare. Interestingly, Sweden has a lot of private schools in 1-12 but few private higher educations. In both cases the funds are coming from public money, so the 1-12 schools are voucher based. > That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula. My kid's school (6y atm) is private. But I can't pay any more to get higher staff-to-student ratio in another school. The school gets the voucher for my kid so they have the same funds as every other school, public or private. If I want to spend money on my kids primary school I could buy an evening tutor of course (no one stops me) - but I basically you can't start a school where you accept money from parents to provide a more expensive education. The law says no fees can be charged for the education, nor for applications. Further it says that donations to schools are allowed but cannot influence education nor applications. > That kind of thing isn't justifiable from a "societal investment" point-of-view It's a fine balance. I want to spend tax money on having a varied group of people educated in arts etc. I think it's fine to pay tax money for someone else to study arts with absolutely no possibility of ever "repaying" society economically. The alternative is that those who can afford to study stuff that doesn't pay (i.e. those with family money) are those that can study those subjects. I don't think that's an objectively better situation to be in. > 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. Sure, but this is a political and ideological choice, such as "kids to low income parents should be as likely to end up with MD's as kids to high income parents". This isn't a practical choice. When I argue that publicly funded higher education is good, I'm arguing ideologically, not "practically". It won't be a more efficient society. It might improve our Gini but it won't necessarily improve our GDP, and so on. Also: it's not like half the population has to du menial jobs and half can do white collar jobs. We used to have effectively 100% farmers just a century ago. Then an industrial society just 50 years ago. Not everyone can have a high tech job, but the variation of jobs in society is fluent and very much depends on the education level of the population. It's not a zero sum game where the number of qualified jobs is fixed. > And you are somewhat looking to establish "freedom from want" Because the drive to provide healthcare and education for myself and my family is somehow a positive "force" that drives society and the economy (perhaps I misunderstood)? Shouldn't that be evident in statistics, e.g. that happiness/quality of life indicators are somehow higher the more "want" there is? All I can see is that they seem...lower