Maternity leave

[KrazyHorse]

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.

History shows nothing of the sort. What history DOES show is that when you give something away for free (even worse you FORCE people to consume it) it is OVERCONSUMED.

[Jon Miller]

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.

So the government will give them loans, just 280k instead of 20k?

Otherwise, it isn't their own judgement, it is the judgement of the loan officers (+ the greed of the loan officers).

And the return for their effort is a lot lower. As I already pointed out.

JM

[Jon Miller]

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.

History shows nothing of the sort. What history DOES show is that when you give something away for free (even worse you FORCE people to consume it) it is OVERCONSUMED.

We had a lot more innovation when education was opened up to the masses by the GI bill (For returning soldiers from WW2).

Before this innovation was much lower. Since than innovation is much higher.

When education was the domain of only the wealthy, we had relatively few engaging in innovation.

JM

[Jon Miller]

And the 280k number ignores that the children of the poor will be pushed to get a job and earn to help their family rather than get an education. Because their (low, McDs) income will be needed. So for them to get an education, it will actually be a lot more difficult than the 280k number indicates.

So rather then Einstein mk2 being given the opportunity to go to higher education, he will be sitting in a McDs or factory working to assist his family... like kids did back in the beginning of the 20th century/end of the 19th century.

JM

[notyoueither]

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.

1840 is pretty middle, and being able to sign your name is pretty basic. I doubt many of the 80% in 1870 would recognise the word 'constitution' let alone have a glimmer of an idea what one was and why it would be important.

At any rate, you asked what 'social returns' other than cash. I gave an answer. You may not like the answer, but that's your problem. I think the onus would be on people who want to return us to Dickens to make your own case, not the other way around. And no, purely economic reasons will not be acceptable, I would think.

[notyoueither]

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?

There is more to society than markets. If the markets and return were the only measure, we should encourage older people to go forth into the snow storm and rid us of their burden. Primitive societies do that.

Let me ask you this. Should Mike Pearson have studied history and gone into the Foreign Service, or should he have pursued engineering or a science and gone to work in industry?

We don't all make decisions as if the market is our god, thank God.

[KrazyHorse]

So the government will give them loans, just 280k instead of 20k?

Otherwise, it isn't their own judgement, it is the judgement of the loan officers (+ the greed of the loan officers).

And the return for their effort is a lot lower. As I already pointed out.

JM

a) It's not the judgment of a single loan officer; it's the judgment of a bunch of competing loan officers

b) If you want to kill two birds with one stone, grant every child at its birth an annuity which begins to pay out at age 18 (X$ per year for life, indexed to CPI). Allow children to borrow against that annuity to pay for their education. Or more properly allow parents to decide, in their children's best interests, whether to sign over their children's annuity for their children's education

[Drake Tungsten]

we should encourage older people to go forth into the snow storm and rid us of their burden.

[KrazyHorse]

And the 280k number ignores that the children of the poor will be pushed to get a job and earn to help their family rather than get an education. Because their (low, McDs) income will be needed.

Child labour is a wholly separate issue from education. Parents shouldn't have the right to steal their children's labour in order to pay for the costs of raising them. I never said they should.

[KrazyHorse]

we should encourage older people to go forth into the snow storm and rid us of their burden.

[Jon Miller]

b) If you want to kill two birds with one stone, grant every child at its birth an annuity which begins to pay out at age 18 (X$ per year for life, indexed to CPI). Allow children to borrow against that annuity to pay for their education. Or more properly allow parents to decide, in their children's best interests, whether to sign over their children's annuity for their children's education

I don't think this is best, but it would solve some of the problems that I have with your proposal.

JM