[openasocket]

You're talking like we don't do these things already. We've have public schools for over a century, we have various forms of welfare, all kinds of special grant programs to help the poor pay for college, etc. And society hasn't collapsed, the poor aren't popping out a dozen kids because they know they get free primary education. All people are proposing is that we improve these programs. It's not an ideological argument, it's a negotiation over degrees.

[Jabanga]

How redistributive were public schools 100 years ago, when they were almost exclusively paid for by local taxes within communities where people had very similar levels of income, and when education spending as a share of GDP was miniscule compared to today?

I would argue that the harm of redistribution has historically been more than counterbalanced by the accelerating rate of technological innovation, but that the last 40 years suggests that the growth of the harmful effects of welfarism are starting to outpace the accelerating natural-rate of innovation. That's what GDP and income growth figures would suggest to me. Also the explosion in single parenthood.

[openasocket]

Subsidizing education is absolutely not redistribution of wealth! It is an investment. Giving a child a good education increases that child's lifelong income, some of which is taken as tax, which can mean putting money into education can result in a profit over time. This is especially true when you consider that giving a child a good education decreases their likelihood of having to live on welfare or unemployment. Not to mention that having a better education decreases criminality! You think welfare is expensive, consider that it costs about $50K a year to hold a person in prison. And I'm just talking about money: there's all kinds of benefits to society as a whole when the populace is better educated. Decreased crime rates means fewer robberies, rapes and murders. A better educated workforce means a larger talent pool for high-tech companies, which is matched by an increased demand for various products.

So don't just write off publicly subsidized education as wealth redistribution!

[Jabanga]

It is a component of child-rearing. Forcing people to pay for the education of other people is redistributive.

If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs.

As for social benefits, I believe the negative effect of encouraging people to have children when they're not capable of personally supporting them, and of reducing the incentive to be productive, outweighs the positive ones.

Before the era of government education, the level of education in society was improving steadily. I don't see history suggesting that society, left to voluntary relationships and income distribution, enters into a downward spiral.

[openasocket]

> If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs.

Student loans? I'm talking about primary and secondary education, not college education. I'm assuming you aren't talking about privatizing those and using students loans to funding things, right?

[Jabanga]

I'm saying that if funding primary education produces societal returns, that must mean the net increase in earning potential exceeds the cost of the education, and therefore it would be profitable to issue student loans to the poor parents of children who would make good use of that education.

[CuriouslyC]

Great, get a child locked into debt slavery from the start. Sounds like a good recipe for violent revolution.

[Rapzid]

Only 100 years ago? A lot? It appears the federal government has been involved in public education nearly from the start. Article I Section 8 of the constitution provides impetus; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;". From the very start the federal government has provided land grants for public schools, and States have been happily applying funds received from the federal government to the costs of education.

[Jabanga]

The federal department of education was only created in 1980. All government spending on education, as a percentage of GDP, was a tiny fraction of what it is today. And the revenue for the education spending was weighted far more towards local sources, making it less redistributive.

[Rapzid]

Which superseded the Office of Education, established in 1867. I don't believe the solid historical foundations supporting your point of view(or adopted point of view for playing devils advocate) exist. Even if it did exist I doubt many people are in a hurry to revert our society and education system along with it back to 1789.

I think you would have a hard time finding any credible sources that indicate public education has been anything but good for the world. Cherry picking historical facts and turning a revisionists blind eye to our country's history won't help. As well, the debate over which LEVEL of government should be paying for education is orthogonal to the merits.

[Jabanga]

From a quick reading, it seems like the Office of Education was a small statistics gathering department with a very limited budget and role. The redistributive aspect of government education spending has increased substantially over the last century and a half. This goes back to the debate over whether society benefits if it guarantees equality of opportunity, and whether history vindicates the claim. Education outcomes have been stagnant for the past 40 years, during the era with the greatest amount of government spending and redistributive spending.

Whether it's a small community, with high levels of income homogeneity, funding the public education, or the federal government, is not orthogonal to the debate on guaranteeing equality of opportunity. The massive increase in government spending (at all levels, federal, state and local) on education is also not orthogonal to the debate.

Several economists have looked at the history of education and concluded that we would have been better off if we never transitioned from nongovernment to government education. The trends in place before public education was created were toward greater literacy and education.

[ZoeZoeBee]

First Land Grants for Public Schools came about with the Morill Act in 1862

https://www.nap.edu/read/4980/chapter/2

[Rapzid]

Perhaps for the sole purpose of schools(I don't know). However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

I'm not sure what arguing over the minutia even accomplishes. I feel like I'm chasing a goal post all over my Friday afternoon. Government support for schooling has been provided by every level of the US government stack(municipal, county, state, federal) since WAY BACK, even to colonial times, to varying degrees. Public access to and public funding of education has increased along the way, yes.

[Rapzid]

And has more than just not collapsed. Public education is an advancement just as important as any other I can think of. "The public school is the greatest discovery made by man." - Horace Mann. Possibly an exaggeration, but I'm not convinced the importance of public education to our society can be overstated. Everyone alive today is benefiting from a society rooted in public education.