Maternity leave

[KrazyHorse]

An educated man gives education as a value to his children. If his children then have the luck and traits to become very productive, then they will also (likely) have more of the non-genetic traits needed to be productive if their parents are educated versus their parents not being educated.

JM

Do you have a point?

[KrazyHorse]

KH, compare the parts of society that have education and value it, with the parts of society that don't have education and don't value it.

Which has higher welfare?

Which is more productive?

JM

Again: what is your point?

[Jon Miller]

Do you have a point?

I am giving other benefits of education which are not included in the direct productivity of the man. Basically, a person effect his/her children.

Most of the great minds of the early 20th and 19th centuries (and late 20th century for the african american community), who were born to poor parents, had poor parents who were more highly educated then usual and ingrained in them the value of education. Which was important to them having traits which allowed them to greatly succeed.

This trickle down effect (which is generational) of education is not included in your reasoning.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I expect NYE to lack the ability to think incisively and quantitatively about ****, Jon. But I'd appreciate it if you would at least make the effort.

People who CHOOSE to gain additional education show significantly increased productivity. Additional dollars of education spending on the government's part, however, don't seem to show very much in the way of payoff. This may be because the government's educational efforts are inefficient in educating people. Or it may be because the people whom this education is being spent on are not the ones for whom education will be of great benefit. Or it could be because education is largely a positional good. Any of these hypotheses argue strongly against higher government spending on education, and in fact strongly for lowering it.

[Jon Miller]

Again: what is your point?

The parts of society that value education and focus on acquiring it, are much more productive then those parts which don't.

They produce more income, they have higher welfare, they produce more taxes.

Giving education as a value is a good thing. In a society where only the rich are easily educated, education will rarely be a value. Rather, it will go back to the days where going into the factory or the field and doing a long days work will be the value.

Once more, look at how important education is in India becoming a success. Without the government supporting education among the populace, it would never be producing the engineers/etc which it is, which is what is pulling the wealth and welfare up.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I am giving other benefits of education which are not included in the direct productivity of the man. Basically, a person effect his/her children.

So now you're granting that forcing education down a man's throat doesn't do society much good. But you have the hope that such men develop a great love of learning which they will pass on to their children?

Come, now.

[notyoueither]

You're kidding, right?

You are saying a society with 95% literacy is not preferable to one with 5%?

5% literacy?



You do realize that the UK in the middle to late part of the 19th century had a literacy rate of ~80%?



I have no clue what gives you the idea that the lack of a public education system would lead to a total lack of education.

About half could sign their own names upon getting married in about 1840.

Not quite 80% literacy, but yes better than 5%.

Still, since you seem to want to argue extremes, I'd like to respond in kind.

That's when Aggy gets to have fun with lamp posts and people who favour gross inequality in society.

This is entirely my point: AGGIE IS THE QUINTESSENTIALLY USELESSLY EDUCATED MAN

Useless according to whom? Are you substituting your own judgement for that of central planners? Tsk, tsk.

And the point is not that Aggy is useless or not, he very well may be. The point is he, or someone like him, could be the child of the rich, have his education, and be in a perfect position to lead people who were not so advantaged into swinging upper class twits from the nearest lamp post.

[KrazyHorse]

The parts of society that value education and focus on acquiring it, are much more productive then those parts which don't.

Errr....duh.

Giving education as a value is a good thing.

No, this does not follow from the above. Please think about it. What types of people value education? Are the traits which make them favour education similar to the traits which make them more productive? Does exogenously changing the value of education change the other traits or does it just mask the differences?

Once more, look at how important education is in India becoming a success. Without the government supporting education among the populace, it would never be producing the engineers/etc which it is, which is what is pulling the wealth and welfare up.

Perhaps you don't understand me: I DON'T disparage the value of education in general. I am disparaging the value of a CERTAIN TYPE OF EDUCATIONAL PROVISION in the DEVELOPED WORLD. You CANNOT take India as an example of a country where greater education yields much greater social welfare and then extrapolate to the First World. The marginal gains in one situation will be FAR different than the marginal gains in the other.

[Jon Miller]

I expect NYE to lack the ability to think incisively and quantitatively about ****, Jon. But I'd appreciate it if you would at least make the effort.

People who CHOOSE to gain additional education show significantly increased productivity. Additional dollars of education spending on the government's part, however, don't seem to show very much in the way of payoff. This may be because the government's educational efforts are inefficient in educating people. Or it may be because the people whom this education is being spent on are not the ones for whom education will be of great benefit. Or it could be because education is largely a positional good. Any of these hypotheses argue strongly against higher government spending on education, and in fact strongly for lowering it.

People getting educated in the wrong ways is an issue of efficiency. I already said that I would be in favor of more tradeskill education rather then sending everyone to get a BA. We don't need the number of philosophy majors/etc that we have now.

But you are arguing in favor of educational barriers (costs) for elementary school, middle school, and highschool.

Additionally, you are ignoring that the great boost to american productivity came after WW2 when all the solders came home and went to college, becoming engineers/etc.

Making it so that people have to spend for their own education will not increase the efficiency of those who can most use the education getting it. Rather, it will go back to education becoming only something that the children of the rich get. And history has shown that this is foolish and wastes human capital.

That is why all the countries that desire to go from 3rd world backwater to 1st world wealthy place great importance on education.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

About half could sign their own names upon getting married in about 1840.

"Middle to late" dne 1840. More like 1875.

And it was about 80% by then.

Now if a bunch of ****ing dirt-poor farmers could afford to teach their kids the ABCs I'm pretty sure a family of four making 60k a year could afford to do the same.

[notyoueither]

I am giving other benefits of education which are not included in the direct productivity of the man. Basically, a person effect his/her children.

Most of the great minds of the early 20th and 19th centuries (and late 20th century for the african american community), who were born to poor parents, had poor parents who were more highly educated then usual and ingrained in them the value of education. Which was important to them having traits which allowed them to greatly succeed.

This trickle down effect (which is generational) of education is not included in your reasoning.

JM

That's an excellent point.

[KrazyHorse]

Useless according to whom? Are you substituting your own judgement for that of central planners? Tsk, tsk.

No, I'm substituting the judgment of the market. Anybody with as obvious a basic level of intelligence as Aggie should be able to make something of his life. Now after decades in school he's likely to earn...what, slightly more than average? Would he have made this poor a choice if he had to support himself the whole way through?

[Jon Miller]

So now you're granting that forcing education down a man's throat doesn't do society much good. But you have the hope that such men develop a great love of learning which they will pass on to their children?

Come, now.

How is placing barriers for the children of poor men, who could be poor for many reasons and value education/all the right things, be a good thing? You are limiting yourself to those who are wealthy/rich.

You wish to place a cut off, and say that if you haven't managed to make yourself rich then there is something wrong with you and you will never make yourself rich (nor give your children the values to do so). This is frankly ridiculous, as there are many reasons people don't make themselves rich, from accidents to institutionalized racism, etc.

I already pointed out that someone can be poor, love hard work and education. Why should you say that such can't give values of that to his/her children?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

How is placing barriers for the children of poor men, who could be poor for many reasons and value education/all the right things, be a good thing? You are limiting yourself to those who are wealthy/rich.

No, I'm limiting myself to educating those who, in THEIR OWN JUDGMENT value an education more than it costs. Those who believe that they can turn an education into a better life at the end of the day.

[KrazyHorse]

You wish to place a cut off, and say that if you haven't managed to make yourself rich then there is something wrong with you and you will never make yourself rich (nor give your children the values to do so).

No, I don't. You ridiculous person.