Tough to educate a 7 year old without some external motivation, plus half of the k-12 education is EQ not IQ, which requires constant interaction with other kids. At the college level though, MOOCs are a huge game changer.
Because an educated populace is the bulwark behind what we call our "democracy". We are losing the effectiveness and efficiency of our democracy as we lose the effectiveness and efficiency of our public schools. If you want to live in this country then you must do your part to support the public education system.
I think what you are likely referring to is the % of GDP that is spent on government. That hovers between 18-20% for many countries including the U.S.A. But curiously, what you get in return varies widely. If you want to compare overall taxation in the U.S. with any other industrialized country, it is very, very difficult to do accurately. If you live in the U.S., you must start by adding everything you, or your employer, pays for health care insurance. And of course, just as in other countries that include government health programs in their tax structure, you will include the amount you pay into medicare in your total tax burden. And then, when comparing to many other countries, you must add in what you pay for post secondary education. Once you've done those things, the U.S. doesn't look so good compared to other countries. Of course, as a U.S. citizen, you get partial ownership of way more hydrogen bombs than other country would give you, so that's a "benefit" no other country provides to the same extent that the U.S. does. And there are many other similar "benefits" that the U.S. truly excels at providing.
If you live in country with free "something" it is probably because the USA already bought you all the hydrogen bombs you will ever need.
I agree with you, but they simply wouldn't benefit by doing that. To be fair, government isn't alone in that thought / motive. What I have seen in the corporate world, at least in management, is that a manager's significance is measured by how many people they have under them and the pay grade of their direct reports. The problem is management one level up doesn't really understand how long something should take to develop or how well it should perform. So in the large corporate world, managers get promoted simply by trying to put as many people under them as they can justify and pay them as much as possible so that they can use that to argue for more compensation for themselves. So there exists the same conflict of interest in regards to what is good for oneself vs. good for one company or country. That's also a reason why you see large tech companies sometimes make really bad acquisitions. The people pushing the acquisition will benefit whether it succeeds or fails in the long run. Their next review will happen right after the deal and it's just assumed that it was a good idea and will work out great for the company.
Sig, I understand the point you're trying to make. It's just a knee-jerk rehash of the often overplayed phrase, "we're all in this together". I've even admitted that you're right about some points such as the importance of parenting. (Although I never disagreed or suggested otherwise.) Sure, some kids really are screwed by their horrible parents. As I mentioned, society could do something about that (look to China for some ideas...not necessarily advocating all of them and no I'm not talking about one child per family), but it chooses to be permissive towards bad parenting because it's more convenient not to address some problems. The best point you made was about veterans as it's true that we wouldn't be here without them. By the way, I went to college with a few ROTC officers who had their education paid for based on their service...there are benefits and compensation to being in the military and those guys paid their own way...and they certainly earned it. No complaints about that. But even given all that, if I come from a bad family or served in the military, how much free stuff am I entitled to? Where do you draw the line? If your argument was actually valid, it would apply to way more than just school. I paid for more than my own education through the property taxes that I pay today. I assume you do the same. I'm paying for my own social security (which I don't count on receiving) and none of this came easy for me. I had to make some real sacrifices endure a lot of stress to get to a more comfortable place down the road (still on the journey...that's why I'm here). Why can't others do the same? You claim that I'm ignoring your point or too stupid to understand it. Where did I argue that people should be uneducated? My argument has always been about who pays for it. But I have asked several questions in this thread which you have failed to address. The most obvious question which others such as RosyScenario have pointed out is: Why do you have such low expectations for others? Why do you expect that people can't save up for their own retirement? Or fund their own education (or children's education as was done for hundreds of years)? I've answered your questions. You have not answered mine.
Actually, for some fields (computer science) it's already here. Checkout MIT's open courseware, Khan Academy, thousands of videos on Youtube for those willing to take the time to learn. No credit or certification given for free, but companies such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon are becoming increasingly more open to hiring people without formal degrees who can pass the hiring interview.
I never said people shouldn't save for their own retirement, I am all for means testing SS. We do live in a society, thankfully, that doesn't let elderly people die of starvation eating dog food because they made poor life choices and deserve it. And it's absurd to think a 6 year old should be damned to a shitty existence or indentured servitude to debt incurred as a child because they had the misfortune to be born to a poor family. We did do that for hundreds of years, many of them were called the dark ages for a reason! You have a pretty serious case of a cognitive bias we all suffer from called the fundamental attribution error. You attribute all or most of you success to your own hard work, which is admirable but not sufficient for success. You ignore the aspects of chance that have impacted your life positively, starting with the fact that you weren't born to a poor, single, inner city mom. And even if you were born an orphan and worked 28 hours a day to achieve everything you have, you wouldn't be where you are if you had been born in Chad. Why, because Chad doesn't have an educated population, a safe environment, adequate medical care, infrastructure...All the things that allowed you and me to succeed. It's again absurd even if all you care about is your own selfish best interest to advocate for something that will enevitably leave a big chunk of our population uneducated. And make no mistake, eliminating public schooling will leave a big chunk of our population uneducated through no fault of their own.
You can't means test ss or medicare or unemployment insurance as they are entitlements, not to be confused with benefits like medicaid or foodstamps which are and should be means tested.
Only "entitlements" because we said they were, we could easily decide that they're a safety net instead if we chose to. We've already cut the amount of the "entitlement" by changing the eligibility age for those who had already started paying in, so the terms of the "entitlement" are clearly subject to change. However, I don't mean to change this to a discussion about SS, I was just responding to the allegation that I didn't think people should save for their own retirement. I do think they should and in fact go so far as to say I don't need it if I have several $M in savings. But I more strongly feel we shouldn't let anyone starve to death in old age (or any age for that matter!) as a consequence of not saving enough, when we as a society could easily prevent it. I'll be as bold as to say I believe we shouldn't let someone starve to death as punishment for any crime, let alone the "crime" of making poor financial decisions earlier in life. That position has to be pretty non-controversial, no?