Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#41

Post by bufordtwain »

swombat wrote: post #29
pyre wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's showing that things are screwed up. We're spending too much on education for what we are getting in return. He's claiming that the system is wholly inefficient. He's just extending that to the health care system in that one-liner. More generally: "For the amount of money that we are putting into , we should be getting more value out of it."

The article is basically claiming that if a doctor earns $100k a year, and costs, say, $1m in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that doctor is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society. That's wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother to argue with it.

Maybe there are some highly specialized occupations (e.g. theoretical scientist) where the high cost of education is justified. But the point is that most people don't go into those fields.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#42

Post by bluedanieru »

three14 wrote: post #30
houseabsolute wrote: post #12

The article pretends - That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probable average output over their lifetime. This is absurd for reasons that I hope I don't need to explain to all you startup founders. - That the salary of a graduate is a total representation of that person's value to society (and, transitively, of their education). This is wrong even if you think the total value of an edu…

You're right about the article itself, but you're missing the context. Greenspun has had a long series of nuggets of cynicism that make up most of his blog posts. Together, they paint a picture that gives more excuse for his cynicism. - Public employees make up an ever growing percentage of the workforce, which still has to be paid for by the private sector. - Many public employees have large unfunded pension obligat…

And the short term.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#43

Post by rjurney »

jancona wrote: post #40
rjurney wrote: post #36

Lets start investing in our kids across the board. State and federal funding for schools is inadequate. Wealthy areas invest additional money in education to bring the quality up to acceptable. Poorer areas cannot do so. Its an injustice that children from less affluent areas cannot get a good education in a public school, cannot have the same educational opportunities as students from more affluent areas. Inequality…

If we don't invest enough why are per pupil expenditures highest in poor quality urban districts? Perhaps the "investment" isn't being well-spent--which I believe is Philip's real point in the OP.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/expenditures/tables/table_03.asp...

$10,300. That is what we actually spend per pupil as a nation.

Look here: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/expenditures/tables/table_01.asp

See the large variance in state and local spending? Much of that is inequality.

To address your question: your assertion is factually incorrect. Some cities spend more in inner city schools, and some spend less. The real inequalities lie in rural schools.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#44

Post by yummyfajitas »

houseabsolute wrote: post #20
sliverstorm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the other article it was referencing? The basis of the argument was Mexicans have a life expectancy of 2 years less than Americans, but massively smaller health care bills. The stipulation is that the return we get (2 years more life) is actually smaller than the cost (in terms of time worked, stress, etc) to bring it about. In other words, you give up 4 years of your life to your work so you can live 2…

I did not read that article but I have read enough like it to know the general thrust of the argument. The ones I've read so far have hinged - on life-expectancy data that is measured differently -- sometimes substantially differently -- from country to country and - the probably false belief that Americans could continue to lead the same lifestyles they do now and still live about as long under a much smaller health…

There is compelling evidence that even within the US, we could cut a lot of medicine without any adverse health effects.

http://hanson.gmu.edu/CutMed.htm

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#45

Post by anamax »

swombat wrote: post #29
pyre wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's showing that things are screwed up. We're spending too much on education for what we are getting in return. He's claiming that the system is wholly inefficient. He's just extending that to the health care system in that one-liner. More generally: "For the amount of money that we are putting into , we should be getting more value out of it."

The article is basically claiming that if a doctor earns $100k a year, and costs, say, $1m in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that doctor is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society. That's wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother to argue with it.

> The article is basically claiming that if a {knowledge} earns ${number} year, and costs, say, ${bigger_number} in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that notfunh is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society.

For a given value of {knowledge}, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true. There are other values for which it is false.

Suppose, for example, it cost $1b to train a straw basketweaver and society was only willing to pay $10k for said basketweaver's output. That's not a worthwhile investment. And substituting doctor for basketweaver doesn't much change things.

Absent force, salary/compensation doesn't capture all of the value that society places on an occupation, but it isn't hugely wrong either.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#46

Post by sprout »

patrickgzill wrote: post #38

I think HN has missed one of Greenspun's points - that we always talk about "investing in our children's future" but never actually consider whether the investment (usually of public money, i.e. tax dollars for K-12, then crushing debt from the parents for college) actually stands the test of financial sense.

No, I think that's specifically the point I take issue with. An educated polity is a social necessity in a democracy - and we are failing at creating an educated polity.

So there's no question to me that educating people stands the test of financial sense. It's a question apart from finance, and essential to our future.

However, I do think it's fair to ask whether the money being spent is more than is necessary to properly educate our citizens.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#48

Post by btilly »

mattmcknight wrote: post #39
houseabsolute wrote: post #12

The article pretends - That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probable average output over their lifetime. This is absurd for reasons that I hope I don't need to explain to all you startup founders. - That the salary of a graduate is a total representation of that person's value to society (and, transitively, of their education). This is wrong even if you think the total value of an edu…

What this article does successfully through hyperbole is to remind us to add opportunity costs into evaluating the value of an education. Your quibbles about the obviously rough numbers don't subtract much from that key point. It obviously doesn't make sense to abandon education, but it also obviously doesn't make sense to pay $500k for it. "That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probab…

"That the current salaries of recent college graduates represent their probable average output over their lifetime." It doesn't represent that at all. It is saying that the value due to education can be roughly approximated by the starting salary. The gains from there are then more based on experience/work, not the education. Of course, you ignore the money made while you would have been in school. You also ignore the periods of unemployment.

That is indeed what it says, but that reasoning is wrong.

He's commenting that most of these expensive kids are unemployed and therefore make nothing. That is due to the economy. However the first job they get is likely to be at a higher salary than non-college students, and a college degree enjoys a permanent advantage throughout life in getting jobs and getting raises.

Even several years out of college, many employers will look at the presence of a degree when hiring. And it is an advantage again if you need to switch careers. (Which is becoming very common.)

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#49

Post by blehn »

ilkhd2 wrote: post #2

Read the article. Visited link to Wikipedia article? Daymit, how you can SURVIVE on 35K a year in USA??? Maybe somewhere in Mississippi, but not in North USA. Still, you'll have to eat random crap from 7-11 and macdonalds...

Really, it's not that hard. Conservative estimates:

Wages: 35k

Taxes: 10.5k

Rent: 1000/mo = 12k

Utilities: 200/mo = 2.4k

Transportation (car): 200/mo+200/mo = 4.8k

Food: 400/mo = 4.8k

Total: 34.5k

Get a roommate, use public transportation, get rid of TV, make your own meals, and you could probably put 5-8k in the bank each year. Even if you're living in NYC, it should be pretty easy to "survive" on 35k a year.

Re: Greenspun: Let's stop investing in our kids

#50

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

ilkhd2 wrote: post #2

Read the article. Visited link to Wikipedia article? Daymit, how you can SURVIVE on 35K a year in USA??? Maybe somewhere in Mississippi, but not in North USA. Still, you'll have to eat random crap from 7-11 and macdonalds...

People do it all the time.

I had a friend who never made more than $20k her whole life and yet was able to own her own house (a tiny cottage here in the Minneapolis metro area), have a running car (bought used and maintained properly) and eat well (cooked her own meals, rarely ate out). I haven't talked to her in about 7 years, but as far as I know, she's doing fine.

I lived alone with no roommates in Fairfield County, CT (a pretty expensive area) for more than 5 years while making less than $30k and was perfectly happy. It just requires managing your finances well.

Post reply on HN