This is what is called a "positional arms race". A comparable situation can be seen in football players and steroids. One does it, so all feel they must do it or be "left behind". For all this struggle, no one is better and most are where they started. Now they must also deal with the huge medical issues that steroids can cause. If every one stopped, all would be better. However, no one wants to be the "sucker" who stops: the first to do so actually will lose.
It's the same issue here: interesting opportunities have a limited number of slots. My benchmark for getting in is not an "A" or a "B+", it's whatever my classmates have and then some. We all study more, but are not any better for it.
There doesn't seem to be a solution that has been devised for this sort of issue in this sort of a case, as it's tremendously difficult to find any viable means of regulating how much free time a child receives (leaving aside the ethical/moral questions about such a practice).
It's not just childhood, though. Higher education [0] has experienced it. Indeed, any "positional good" which has a limited number which go to the "best" is likely already experiencing this or will soon.
Again, no one has yet found a perfect solution for such an application as this. We've tinkered with the positioning in certain cases (e.g. higher education and affirmative action), but it often doesn't work (in the instance of higher education, while all kids' childhoods may be screwed up, certain groups have theirs screwed up in the "right ways") [1].
I believe another example is the rise among millennials of "experience" vacations. Increased social media usage fuels envy and a perception of being lesser, meaning john doe now feels he needs to take a more exotic vacation and get more pictures with more retouching.
I see no easy solution to this. The normal mitigation is government regulation, but I see no "arms control" type solution for number of math problems done. Ideas, any one?
The question is, why aren't more outcomes acceptable? Why do parents feel a social pressure to make heir kids belong to a certain percentile of "successful" young adults?
It could be many explanations, but it's definitely more prominent in the US and China (among middle class/upper middle class) than in e.g. the Netherlands or Sweden. So let's ask: what's the difference? Why do I not need to take my kids to extra curricular activities, and instead I trust I can leave them to play with rocks till it gets dark just like I did myself when I was a kid in the 80's?
I think it's down to many factors that makes society less competitive:
- I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...)
- Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt.
- Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized tests, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments.
- Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar.
> I know that if my kid screws up, they'll still be comfortable (have healthcare, pension,...)
There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual.
> Higher education is free so It's not an "investment" or a "risk" that needs to pay off for me or them. I hope they'll study because they find it interesting. If they do, they won't need a great career to pay of student debt.
It is an investment by some one. If free, it's an investment by society. If suddenly I'm paying for Joey's college, I'd feel I get to tell him to study engineering (or some other high-paying field) rather than poetry, as it's my nickel on which he's going. That's society's right when it pays, because the return would be payed later on in taxes to fund my retirement, in your vision of how this works. In any case, this is always an investment. Putting in years of a life is investment for the student; tuition is an investment for whoever pays. How else do you justify spending many thousands of my tax dollars to let some kid study what's "interesting" and go to parties? Why ought I to pay for that?
> Admission to higher education is never made on soft or arbitrary values such as past participation in extra curricular activities. If my kid scores better on the standardized test, they'll snag a position at the best school over any a kid that is the child of a billionaire who was always president of all clubs and plays 24 musical instruments.
How do you propose to force this? The best schools are private. Also, standardized tests are a poor predictor of future success [0] [1] [2] [3]. Finally, the idea of one "all-or-nothing" test for which you can just cram for a few months (while slacking off for the rest of high school) is silly.
> Education isn't very competitive. In 20 years of school I never saw a "ranking" where anyones results or grades were published, e.g. where someone was declared "top of class" or similar.
Depends which part you're in. The best is always competitive. Also, I thought many teachers (and definitely profs) posted grade lists publicly?
Here's the core problem: every one keeps demanding an economic system that provides not liberty but essentially "freedom from hardship". Every one just wants to eat, and have health care, and a house, and vacation, and retirement, and a stable, comfortable, life. No economic system can guarantee you that. We have limited wants and unlimited needs. Population is growing, and may well out-pace economic growth. Many issues simply cannot be directly controlled by governments. Voting for utopia usually leads to disaster.
> There are a few issues with this, the most glaring that people live longer. You can't live till 80 and expect to stop working at 65; pensions are supposed to pay for the last year or two if you live longer than usual.
I fully expect retirement age to increase. As you say it has to of expected lifespan increases.
> The best schools are private
That may be part of the problem in some countries, yes. They aren’t here.
> It’s an investment by someone
So is primary school. Most countries say some level of basic education should be guaranteed by public funding. Including higher education too isn’t that much of a stretch. It’s very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education.
I don’t think a society with a good pension system, publicly funded higher education and healthcare is a society “without hardship”, but it’s one where illness doesn’t risk meaning financial ruin, for example.
Glad we're agreed there. Of course, the next big challenge will be keeping people not just alive but in good health past age sixty. Many times people will live their last twenty years with, say, a bad back which could prevent work. Stem cells seem promising (especially as the price drops), as do three-dimensionally-printed parts.
>> The best schools are private.
> That may be part of the problem in some countries, yes. They aren't here.
Where is "here"? For reference, in America, the best private schools can cost almost as much as the salary of a minimum-wage worker. That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula. I could see working toward better public schools, absolutely, but I don't see putting that kind of money toward every student. How would public school compete in such a scenario?
>> It's an investment by someone
So is primary school. Most countries sya some level of basic education should be guaranteed by public funding. Including higher education isn't that much of a stretch. It's very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education.
It is that much of a stretch. Free college is eight t-t-t-trillion dollars over the first ten years [0]. That doesn't even factor in that quality will likely go down. The government isn't going to hand you an expense account for today's college choices, it's going to create new, lower-quality colleges. A liberal-arts education is expensive because it entails years of studying things that aren't professionally relevant - an IoT dev doesn't need to read Plutarch. That kind of thing isn't justifiable from a "societal investment" point-of-view. P.S. there's also Sanders' plan to cancel the existing one point four trillion dollars outstanding.
> It's very hard to achieve high social mobility without free higher education.
You're looking at people who attend college and enter the upper half of society, and attempting to say, "If everyone goes to college, everyone can enter the upper half of society!" Unfortunately, it's just that - a half. There are only so many jobs of that sort; college makes people more competitive applicants. You won't necessarily create more by creating more people who go to college.
> I don't think a society with a good pension system, publicly funded higher education and healthcare is a society "without hardship", but it's one where illness doesn't mean risking financial ruin.
You said "publicly funded", not "run by the government". Again, that plays into the mistaken impression that every one gets what the middle class and up get now, just paid by the government. That's never how it works. And you are somewhat looking to establish "freedom from want" to an extent; you basically want to cover the first two levels of Maslow. Everything on top of that is personal and petty.
(I know this source has a definitive right bias, but it references a left-wing external source and, for whatever reason, had better SEO than said source).
> Where is "here"? For reference, in America, the best private schools can cost almost as much as the salary of a minimum-wage worker. That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula.
"Here" is Sweden in this case, but there are similar examples.
> You said "publicly funded", not "run by the government".
That's a detail of implementation for both schools and healthcare. Interestingly, Sweden has a lot of private schools in 1-12 but few private higher educations. In both cases the funds are coming from public money, so the 1-12 schools are voucher based.
> That's part of how they maintain such high staff-to-student ratio and such individualized curricula.
My kid's school (6y atm) is private. But I can't pay any more to get higher staff-to-student ratio in another school. The school gets the voucher for my kid so they have the same funds as every other school, public or private. If I want to spend money on my kids primary school I could buy an evening tutor of course (no one stops me) - but I basically you can't start a school where you accept money from parents to provide a more expensive education. The law says no fees can be charged for the education, nor for applications. Further it says that donations to schools are allowed but cannot influence education nor applications.
> That kind of thing isn't justifiable from a "societal investment" point-of-view
It's a fine balance. I want to spend tax money on having a varied group of people educated in arts etc.
I think it's fine to pay tax money for someone else to study arts with absolutely no possibility of ever "repaying" society economically.
The alternative is that those who can afford to study stuff that doesn't pay (i.e. those with family money) are those that can study those subjects. I don't think that's an objectively better situation to be in.
> You're looking at people who attend college and enter the upper half of society, and attempting to say, "If everyone goes to college, everyone can enter the upper half of society!" Unfortunately, it's just that - a half. There are only so many jobs of that sort; college makes people more competitive applicants. You won't necessarily create more by creating more people who go to college.
Sure, but this is a political and ideological choice, such as "kids to low income parents should be as likely to end up with MD's as kids to high income parents". This isn't a practical choice. When I argue that publicly funded higher education is good, I'm arguing ideologically, not "practically". It won't be a more efficient society. It might improve our Gini but it won't necessarily improve our GDP, and so on.
Also: it's not like half the population has to du menial jobs and half can do white collar jobs. We used to have effectively 100% farmers just a century ago. Then an industrial society just 50 years ago. Not everyone can have a high tech job, but the variation of jobs in society is fluent and very much depends on the education level of the population.
It's not a zero sum game where the number of qualified jobs is fixed.
> And you are somewhat looking to establish "freedom from want"
Because the drive to provide healthcare and education for myself and my family is somehow a positive "force" that drives society and the economy (perhaps I misunderstood)?
Shouldn't that be evident in statistics, e.g. that happiness/quality of life indicators are somehow higher the more "want" there is?
All I can see is that they seem...lower
Again, how do you propose to spend as much money as the best private schools, per-student? It would actually be more, as public schools are vastly more inefficient.
> That's a detail of implementation
The right actually supports something like this with "school vouchers": you can choose where your child's tax dollars go to work. The left is for some bizarre reason opposed to this.
> basically you can't start a school where you accept money from parents to provide a more expensive education
Why? If I've got money to burn, why? Who cares what some one does with his money, if he's already payed taxes? What right have you to dictate how I spend my money? It's mine, not yours, you have no say how it's spent.
> I think it's fine to pay tax money for someone else to study arts with absolutely no possibility of ever "repaing" society economically.
All right, you think it's okay. I don't; that's not how I want to spend my money. Instead of trying to force me to do it too, why don't you just contribute to a charity that provides scholarships? Also, most college students spend a lot of time partying, drinking, etc. Why on God's green earth ought I to pay for that?
> I'm arguing ideologically, not "practically".
Ok, let's discuss ideology. At the end of the day, if you do not pay your taxes and do not show up in court, a bunch of guys will pull up in a black van, bust down your door, and haul you off to jail. If you resist, they might shoot you. This sort of force ought to be reserved for only serious cases. When you force someone to contribute tax, you force him to set aside any possible moral objections or personal issues with the threat of a gun. That threat underlies all the government's day-to-day authority.
Such authority ought not to be used to force me to pay for someone spending four years skipping class and binge-drinking. In other words, the basic function of government is to protect my liberties. Forcing me to pay for the college of another does nothing towards this end.
> it's not like half the population has to du menial jobs and half can do white collar jobs
No, but all of the menial jobs must get done. You claim you want a society where a poor kid is just as likely as a rich one to become a doctor. How do you propose to achieve that? Even with "free" college, you will not achieve that. Poor kids do worse in school, worse in college.
> It's not a zero sum game where the number of qualified jobs is fixed.
No, but the number of qualified jobs will not expand nearly as much as the pool of qualified applicants. This is because by taxing people more to pay for this free college, you will reduce their income, giving them less to spend. This means you probably won't see much growth in the number of jobs, as the people who pay for things made by these "white-collar" jobs are the ones who you will be most taxing. You will have a large pool of college grads and a smaller pool of jobs; wages will tank.
> Because the drive to provide healthcare and education for myself and my family is somehow a positive "force" that drives society and the economy (perhaps I misunderstood)? Shouldn't that be evident in statistics, e.g. that happiness/quality of life indicators are somehow higher the more "want" there is? All I can see is that they seem...lower
You're not, say, seeking an extra job to get more for your family. You're trying to vote yourself other people's money to get more for your family. That's theft.
With respect to statistics on quality of life:
1. You just said your argument was ideological, not practical.
2. The job of the government is not to make you "happy". It is to safeguard a few basic liberties, roughly outlined by our constitution.
> Why? If I've got money to burn, why? Who cares what some one does with his money, if he's already payed taxes? What right have you to dictate how I spend my money? It's mine, not yours, you have no say how it's spent.
Because voters decide how the school system works. Here the equality of the school system is a political goal (that even the political right stand behind because of popular support).
The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. If you want extra security you can hire a bodyguard (which would be analogous to the tutor).
So why have voters here decided that the lack of liberty in spending your own heavily taxed money is a price worth paying for having a more equal education system? I don’t know.
Voters could decide this in any country (in many they have already), just like they could decide that publicly funded universal healthcare is a good idea. Importantly - if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it (because I hope we agree that the real job of government isn’t to provide some god given laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve its citizens).
It’s not like a large welfare state would be “unconstitutional”, even in the US.
You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.
> The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police.
Not directly, though funding politicians who set policy for the police who will favor your interests is definitely a way that it can be, and is, regularly done (both with local police and broader-scope law enforcement.)
> Because voters decide how the school system works
Right, they're allowed to decide how the school money for public schools is spent. They have no control over what a free man does on his private property. If he wants to open a school and teach, there is no constitutional provision that allows the government to stop this.
America originally maintained the provision that unless you're infringing my basic liberties, the government has no business getting involved. Some people have perverted this and tried to buy votes with hand-outs, but the core principal remains the same. Read the Constitution; it clearly supports this ideal.
> you can't buy better service from the police.
Wrong. Many wealthy neighborhoods hire an extra sheriff or even a few extras to patrol the neighborhood.
> Voters could decide this in any country... if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it
Nope. The government upholds a narrowly-defined set of basic liberties laid out in the Constitution. It is not a tool with which the tyranny of the majority may extract its desired outcome from the minority. Socialized medicine is unconstitutional. Free college is unconstitutional. Honestly, public school as constituted today is unconstitutional and ought to be relegated to the states.
> I hope we agree that the real job of government isn't to provide some god give laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve it's citizens
Sorry, nope. I don't agree, so if you want to take this as a premise going forward, you'll have to actually support it.
> It's not like a large welfare state would be "unconstitutional", even in the US.
Again, that's incorrect. A reading of the Constitution provides no provision for a federal welfare state.
> You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.
Stop referring to public school through high school as bundled with this free college thing. They're separate. The rationale for public school as it exists today is that you cannot be a functioning member of a democratic republic without literacy, logic, etc. That is why we have public schools today. They don't meet expectations, but the justification is not "economic mobility".
You may read the above and wonder, "How would a government described above get any thing done?" The answer is that we are based on federalism. The rest of the world rests on large central governments, we do not. The core assumption is that the federal government does the bare minimum, and the rest of the power is retained by the state. The state will do what is necessary only at that level, and the rest is retained by counties and municipalities. Those fulfill their bare minimum of necessary duties, and most power is retained by the individual. Originally, the Constitution only protected rights from infringement by the feds. The 14th amendment changed that; these days the states cannot violate rights either. Theoretically, a state could introduce a health-care system. Indeed, California and Massachusetts do this already. The only reason why some one would try to do this at a national level is so he can force his personal views on those who disagree with him. This "stick it to the red state/blue state" (depending on who is in office) attitude of federal politicians is harmful and violates both the principles of federalism and the Constitution itself. These people have the biggest mouths, and try to promulgate the disingenuous idea that the federal government is the ultimate source of power. This is what people in other nations see. It is, however, not true.
You are approaching this from the perspective of Sweden - a bloated, over-might central government which is the ultimate receptacle of power. This central government then delegates down whatever rights it sees fit for you to have. This is why it can construct rights such as health-care. The feudal roots of modern European nations allows such behavior, as the cultural premise of noblesse oblige and "grace from above" is ingrained into your government. This is not the case here. Those who seek to make it so are motivated only by power, as that sort of structure carries vastly more.
It's the same issue here: interesting opportunities have a limited number of slots. My benchmark for getting in is not an "A" or a "B+", it's whatever my classmates have and then some. We all study more, but are not any better for it.
There doesn't seem to be a solution that has been devised for this sort of issue in this sort of a case, as it's tremendously difficult to find any viable means of regulating how much free time a child receives (leaving aside the ethical/moral questions about such a practice).
It's not just childhood, though. Higher education [0] has experienced it. Indeed, any "positional good" which has a limited number which go to the "best" is likely already experiencing this or will soon.
Again, no one has yet found a perfect solution for such an application as this. We've tinkered with the positioning in certain cases (e.g. higher education and affirmative action), but it often doesn't work (in the instance of higher education, while all kids' childhoods may be screwed up, certain groups have theirs screwed up in the "right ways") [1].
I believe another example is the rise among millennials of "experience" vacations. Increased social media usage fuels envy and a perception of being lesser, meaning john doe now feels he needs to take a more exotic vacation and get more pictures with more retouching.
I see no easy solution to this. The normal mitigation is government regulation, but I see no "arms control" type solution for number of math problems done. Ideas, any one?
[0]: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474473
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-pai...