2 ms·

Supply and demand. Demand for certain fields is high, so governments are willing to put more money into them because they're more likely to pay off in the futur

by fiblye 6y ago

Supply and demand. Demand for certain fields is high, so governments are willing to put more money into them because they're more likely to pay off in the future. Meanwhile, certain art majors are in very low demand and supply is high, so governments aren't willing to pay. Not saying what they're doing is right. Just saying that from a purely economic perspective, it makes sense. I don't think university should be purely economically driven, though.

triceratops 6y ago
> governments are willing to put more money into them because they're more likely to pay off in the future... certain art majors are in very low demand and supply is high, so governments aren't willing to pay. Pay off for those respective industries, and the people in them. So why should taxpayers subsidize something that would be profitable and paid-for anyway? Government should be subsidizing things that the market won't pay for precisely because there're no money in it.
- fiblye 6y ago
  The government has incentives to invest in things that boost its own economy. A government that pays for 10 engineers will likely get a bigger return that one that pays for 10 art history majors. Paying for something that has little industrial use and doesn't boost GDP numbers would actually be idiotic and anti-market.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    If a degree has industrial use, why doesn't industry pay for it? Why are taxpayers pulling out their checkbook?
    - fiblye 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy Governments often pump money into things seen as having long term benefits for a country. Examples: investing in agricultural independence, roads, phone networks. An entirely free market would still have these. Government investment gives it an initial push to develop faster. Australia decided they have some fields they should prioritize for national development. The idea of people working in one industry or one company for life is long gone, so expecting a company to subsidize someone's education just isn't happening unless they're already in the company. Furthermore, an entirely free market approach to art majors would probably have even fewer art majors. If governments didn't subsidize degrees or offer loans or funding or anything of the sort, nobody but the elite would be studying art history at the academic level at all. So the government either remains completely neutral and funds things equally, it funds nothing at all, or it funds according to national needs. Some countries choose #1 or #2. Australia chose #3.

by fiblye 6y ago

triceratops 6y ago

> governments are willing to put more money into them because they're more likely to pay off in the future... certain art majors are in very low demand and supply is high, so governments aren't willing to pay. Pay off for those respective industries, and the people in them. So why should taxpayers subsidize something that would be profitable and paid-for anyway? Government should be subsidizing things that the market won't pay for precisely because there're no money in it.

fiblye 6y ago
The government has incentives to invest in things that boost its own economy. A government that pays for 10 engineers will likely get a bigger return that one that pays for 10 art history majors. Paying for something that has little industrial use and doesn't boost GDP numbers would actually be idiotic and anti-market.
- triceratops 6y ago
  If a degree has industrial use, why doesn't industry pay for it? Why are taxpayers pulling out their checkbook?
  - fiblye 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy Governments often pump money into things seen as having long term benefits for a country. Examples: investing in agricultural independence, roads, phone networks. An entirely free market would still have these. Government investment gives it an initial push to develop faster. Australia decided they have some fields they should prioritize for national development. The idea of people working in one industry or one company for life is long gone, so expecting a company to subsidize someone's education just isn't happening unless they're already in the company. Furthermore, an entirely free market approach to art majors would probably have even fewer art majors. If governments didn't subsidize degrees or offer loans or funding or anything of the sort, nobody but the elite would be studying art history at the academic level at all. So the government either remains completely neutral and funds things equally, it funds nothing at all, or it funds according to national needs. Some countries choose #1 or #2. Australia chose #3.