zlacker

>>pessim+(OP)
This idea is not really new - the California Master Plan for Education essentially promised a free higher education to everyone in California. In 1960. [1]

As these things go, the plan was eroded over time, with the (in)famous Proposition 13 of 1978 dealing a big blow.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Hig...

>>xmddmx+Bo
They implemented a great component of those ideas. Seems like cause for at least some celebration, right? :)

>>ajju+Rp
I'm an educator, and a social democrat (approximately) so "yes"?

What saddens me is that grand (and simple) plan "free education for all" gets watered down and chipped away to "free education for those who have money or connections" and later attempts to shore it up offten amount to "free education for $special_group". While I don't deny $special_group should get free education, what gets me is all the special-pleading going on.

In OOM programming terms, it's like we had a universal principle which was easy to implement, and this has now been replaced by a bunch of switch/case statements...

>>xmddmx+ar
I'm approximately a social democrat too, but I'm also a pragmatist. Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony. Education, like everything, costs money, and we can't just wave a magic wand and change that. The only question is who pays for it: the student, or someone else. "Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea. But I really wish we'd stop calling it something that it's not.

>>lisper+Xs
"social democrat" - are you sure? the point remains: some services are social goods and should be treated as such, so that "nobody lacks for inability to pay". That's not literally "free" but has the same meaning in practice.

>>xmddmx+5y
Something is not free if someone else is forced to pay for it. It’s really easy to be generous with other people’s resources.

>>jonhoh+dC
It's easy to argue that nothing is truly "free" since tradeoffs always exist--at least to some small degree--but that isn't illuminating or helpful.

We all know what is meant by "free" in this context, and there's no point in acting obtuse about it except to argue in bad faith.

>>Santal+IF
I’m really not trying to argue in bad faith. Many conversations about “free” social services ignore real capital and human cost of the proposal as if it doesn’t exist. Why stop at education when basic needs like food, water, and shelter could all be “free”? The cost of residential water in CA, for example, is about an ⅛th of the education budget.

In the case of covered education for foster kids, I’m conflicted. I’m in favor of providing anyone placed in the foster care system resources to offset their hardship. I would support non-profits that showed they could efficiently direct funding to programs to help foster kids go to college. I would wager there is research that shows positive economic and social impact by sending foster kids to college that outweighs the cost and significantly reduces the risk of foster to prison. But that’s my choice and don’t think everyone else should be forced to have the same convictions.

While not perfect, Arizona exposes this somewhat by offering tax credits for contributions to non-profits in certain categories (aid for working poor, tuition assistance, foster/adoption, public schools). I’m still forced to cover the cost of social programs, but minimally I get have some agency in choosing organizations that align with my philosophy in those domains and aren’t kicking back a slice of that money to politicians.

>>jonhoh+9W
Education is a prime target for government subsidies because, as a market, it yields positive externalities. This means when a person receives an education, the net benefit is felt by society at large. It's a well-established economic principle.

So if we're going to discuss the economic realities of government subsidies, we should go a bit further than "things cost money," because that's obvious and simplistic.

*Edit: Just want to add that the tax debate is indeed worth having. My point is only that the justification for subsidies is grounded in econ principles, not just the whims of the public.