Hacker News Reader

Comment by aryehof | Hacker News Reader

The article mentions that the data shows a huge allocation of resources to education. Why is education publicly funded in the USA, and not left to market forces? Can't that be considered a "socialist" policy?

View on HN

A public company generally cares about quarterly performance. A private company might have its sights as far as a few years out. However, with education it takes about 20 years to start seeing a return on investment. It just doesn't make sense to approach education from a business standpoint, both because the ROI is very low, and you need to have stability in education, you can't have someone like ITT Tech all of a sudden deciding to close their door to tens of thousands of students and leave with a bunch of useless credits that won't transfer.

You're telling me Exxon doesn't look 20 years out? Burlington Northern, a railroad, was looking 30 years out when my dad worked for them. Is there a more classic example of American "big business"?

If you really believe this why don't you short-sell a bunch of companies and make a killing?

Because the belief has nothing to do with your arbitrary test. And even if it did, the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

one of my favorite John Maynard Keynes quotes.

Pretty sure the point of parent comment was to make us think about the hypocrisy that the USA can't have single payer healthcare because it's "socialist", but education is perfectly ok to be "socialist."

Because education is one of the foundations of a productive life, and we don't want to even further widen the gap between the rich and poor?

It should be publicly funded because it's a good investment on a country level, with great ROI. The more educated citizens you have, the better companies your country will attract, and the more innovative startups your citizens will start. This will enable your country to better compete with other countries for industries and smart people. Also, educated people make (hopefully) educated choices, which should benefit democracy and the effectiveness of a democratic government.

Children are the primary beneficiaries of education. They aren't consumers choosing between different products. Their parents are able to choose where they go to school (to some extent), but there's always a free option -- as there should be.

The secondary beneficiaries of education are everyone else is society. Education has the highest ROI out of anything the government spends, and it keeps all of us safer and healthier.

Are there any countries where education is not publicly funded? What are those countries' education systems like?

> Can't [publicly funded education] be considered a "socialist" policy?

Are there people who think it isn't?

It's welfare.

Yes it is. But they will tell you that you signed the social contract with your birth blood and need to pay up or go to jail if not. Harsh but that is the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com