5 ms·

I think it's a pretty rubbish idea if you don't believe the point of life is to maximise your earnings. What if the point is to lead a good life that you enjoy

I think it's a pretty rubbish idea if you don't believe the point of life is to maximise your earnings. What if the point is to lead a good life that you enjoy on some level, and society is a system in which we perhaps try and facilitate that for everyone?

pb7 6y ago
I don’t see anything wrong with that but then tax payers shouldn’t need to subsidize your particular goals in life. No one is stopping you from getting that arts degree, it’s still there for you.
- tacomonstrous 6y ago
  If I'm not mistaken this comment misses the main point the parent is making: if the goal of society is to ensure that everyone gets to live a good, fulfilling life, then this is precisely the kind of thing taxpayers should subsidize.
  - pb7 6y ago
    I imagine they’re only taking action because they’re currently heading down the wrong path. But even still, it’s hard for me to agree that society should subsidize things that it democratically decided it doesn’t need as much of. Will someone pay me to watch TV all day because I’m really into movies? Probably not. You have to draw the line somewhere. I would be fully onboard your side of thinking if they were planning on getting rid of the arts in schools altogether but coincidentally, it’s more favorable for the schools to fund those fields because they get more money from the few that choose to pursue them. Let’s also not forget that formal education is not the only or even the best way to explore your interests in these things.
- NamTaf 6y ago
  As an Aussie, I'm pretty happy to subsidise any of my fellow citizens getting higher education if they want to, because I believe the pursuit of life goals and in particular life goals in education leads to a societal betterment overall. Written differently, if someone wants to go and study philosophy even if they don't believe they'll ever work in the field, I'm happy that my tax helps to support that because I think that the process of higher education in itself is a valuable learning experience that helps produce better citizens within their communities. Higher education - even without directly leading to a career - can be a very powerful way of lifting people out of generational poverty traps. You say that no one is stopping someone getting said degree, however often without subsidy/support it can be prohibitively expensive and that stops them. No one person may be stopping them, but systems doing so are no better. Naturally, that comes with limits, since we are not yet able to function in a fully automated society where scarcity is abolished. Hence why the Aussie system caps the subsidised loans you may receive. edit to add: I also support reducing the societal pressure that a university degree is the only path to success. I'd like to see much more support and emphasis placed on practical tertiary education, such as trades and the like. I think it's all too often an option that people dismiss because they're sold the lie that university guarantees success.
  - wink 6y ago
    I actually think it's kind of a step back. In former times only rich people could afford to do anything with the arts, this is the first step that only rich people's kids can study the arts. I don't personally get why anyone would ever do that, I always hated anything with art and music in school, but I don't want to stop them going for it. They need to live with the fact anyway that they might get a lower-paying job in the end and work in a field that's not related to their degree. But it's their choice.
adamisom 6y ago
I agree people should optimize for a good life. That's why spending four years living your good life at college shouldn't be the focus--because you'll have decades more, and it's more important to get 50+ years right than it is to get 4.
rexreed 6y ago
I think you overestimate the ambitions of the vast majority of state college students here in the US whose primary reasons for getting an art history degree or english literature degree has little to do with english literature or art history being their path to happiness, let alone earnings. For most, they get a degree because society says they should get a degree. The value is in the paper that says they are a graduate. The educational value is highly questionable. These graduates then get many of the same jobs they would have gotten without the degrees, or those jobs where "any degree" is suitable. Basically, what they are paying for is the paper that the degree is printed on and not the education that went into it. Many of these same graduates happily live their lives once they get the paper without further pursuing art history or english literature. If they were truly interested in both we'd see huge demand for art and literature continuing education from the large quantity of art and literature grads. But this is not the case. I don't equate a college degree with a desire to pursue that subject. For many the paper that says "college graduate" and the checkmark on their resume is the value they seek because society says they need that. But I don't see many altruistic undergraduates getting the paper for pursuit of higher liberal arts goals.
jackpeterfletch 6y ago
One thing I think its important to remember, and that alot of graduates dont figure out until they leave, is that wether your a person or a country, the harsh reality is that the world really owes you nothing. If an country or person doesn't produce in demand skills and produce in demand products, then it doesn't have any leverage with which to get the things it demands itself. An example of one such demand might be... a freely accessable largely tax funded teriary education system. If we can't fund good education, then our living standards fall rapidly. Its the governments job to protect our living standards, and thus they might take interest in pushing people towards in demand skills. This doesn't have to be as grotesque as you might think. Note that in the past, while University has always been 'open' in the sense that candidates are free to persue any course that they provide, student population was much, much lower. A bigger potion of the countries skills were much more commonly attained by on the job training, and apprenticeships, which are implicitly market driven.
- jackpeterfletch 6y ago
  Another way to think of this... Is that a student that picks up poorly demanded skills and can't attain reasonable income, long term won't pay into the tax system that allowed them to do that. At certain level that would become unsustainable through the generations.
amrx101 6y ago
As some one who comes from a lower income country with limited resources, let me put out some points. - Education is costly and only way it is affordable if the government provides subsidies both to the institution and to the banks for education loan. - The government has limited resources and has to allocate funds for many other things other than education. - In this scenario its prudent that government does a priority allocation.

pb7 6y ago

I don’t see anything wrong with that but then tax payers shouldn’t need to subsidize your particular goals in life. No one is stopping you from getting that arts degree, it’s still there for you.

tacomonstrous 6y ago
If I'm not mistaken this comment misses the main point the parent is making: if the goal of society is to ensure that everyone gets to live a good, fulfilling life, then this is precisely the kind of thing taxpayers should subsidize.
- pb7 6y ago
  I imagine they’re only taking action because they’re currently heading down the wrong path. But even still, it’s hard for me to agree that society should subsidize things that it democratically decided it doesn’t need as much of. Will someone pay me to watch TV all day because I’m really into movies? Probably not. You have to draw the line somewhere. I would be fully onboard your side of thinking if they were planning on getting rid of the arts in schools altogether but coincidentally, it’s more favorable for the schools to fund those fields because they get more money from the few that choose to pursue them. Let’s also not forget that formal education is not the only or even the best way to explore your interests in these things.
NamTaf 6y ago
As an Aussie, I'm pretty happy to subsidise any of my fellow citizens getting higher education if they want to, because I believe the pursuit of life goals and in particular life goals in education leads to a societal betterment overall. Written differently, if someone wants to go and study philosophy even if they don't believe they'll ever work in the field, I'm happy that my tax helps to support that because I think that the process of higher education in itself is a valuable learning experience that helps produce better citizens within their communities. Higher education - even without directly leading to a career - can be a very powerful way of lifting people out of generational poverty traps. You say that no one is stopping someone getting said degree, however often without subsidy/support it can be prohibitively expensive and that stops them. No one person may be stopping them, but systems doing so are no better. Naturally, that comes with limits, since we are not yet able to function in a fully automated society where scarcity is abolished. Hence why the Aussie system caps the subsidised loans you may receive. edit to add: I also support reducing the societal pressure that a university degree is the only path to success. I'd like to see much more support and emphasis placed on practical tertiary education, such as trades and the like. I think it's all too often an option that people dismiss because they're sold the lie that university guarantees success.
- wink 6y ago
  I actually think it's kind of a step back. In former times only rich people could afford to do anything with the arts, this is the first step that only rich people's kids can study the arts. I don't personally get why anyone would ever do that, I always hated anything with art and music in school, but I don't want to stop them going for it. They need to live with the fact anyway that they might get a lower-paying job in the end and work in a field that's not related to their degree. But it's their choice.

adamisom 6y ago

I agree people should optimize for a good life. That's why spending four years living your good life at college shouldn't be the focus--because you'll have decades more, and it's more important to get 50+ years right than it is to get 4.

rexreed 6y ago

I think you overestimate the ambitions of the vast majority of state college students here in the US whose primary reasons for getting an art history degree or english literature degree has little to do with english literature or art history being their path to happiness, let alone earnings. For most, they get a degree because society says they should get a degree. The value is in the paper that says they are a graduate. The educational value is highly questionable. These graduates then get many of the same jobs they would have gotten without the degrees, or those jobs where "any degree" is suitable. Basically, what they are paying for is the paper that the degree is printed on and not the education that went into it. Many of these same graduates happily live their lives once they get the paper without further pursuing art history or english literature. If they were truly interested in both we'd see huge demand for art and literature continuing education from the large quantity of art and literature grads. But this is not the case. I don't equate a college degree with a desire to pursue that subject. For many the paper that says "college graduate" and the checkmark on their resume is the value they seek because society says they need that. But I don't see many altruistic undergraduates getting the paper for pursuit of higher liberal arts goals.

jackpeterfletch 6y ago

One thing I think its important to remember, and that alot of graduates dont figure out until they leave, is that wether your a person or a country, the harsh reality is that the world really owes you nothing. If an country or person doesn't produce in demand skills and produce in demand products, then it doesn't have any leverage with which to get the things it demands itself. An example of one such demand might be... a freely accessable largely tax funded teriary education system. If we can't fund good education, then our living standards fall rapidly. Its the governments job to protect our living standards, and thus they might take interest in pushing people towards in demand skills. This doesn't have to be as grotesque as you might think. Note that in the past, while University has always been 'open' in the sense that candidates are free to persue any course that they provide, student population was much, much lower. A bigger potion of the countries skills were much more commonly attained by on the job training, and apprenticeships, which are implicitly market driven.

jackpeterfletch 6y ago
Another way to think of this... Is that a student that picks up poorly demanded skills and can't attain reasonable income, long term won't pay into the tax system that allowed them to do that. At certain level that would become unsustainable through the generations.

amrx101 6y ago

As some one who comes from a lower income country with limited resources, let me put out some points. - Education is costly and only way it is affordable if the government provides subsidies both to the institution and to the banks for education loan. - The government has limited resources and has to allocate funds for many other things other than education. - In this scenario its prudent that government does a priority allocation.