[eru]

That's why we shouldn't subsidise education in the first place.

The net benefits of education accrue to more than 100% to the customer. And, people from well-off backgrounds can and do take more advantage of education.

We should just give poor people money, and let them decide for themselves how they want to spend it. If they want to spend it on (unsubsidised) education, that would be fine choice for them to make.

[bumby]

I do agree that when you subsidize something you get more of it. So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing. Most people probably agree that a more educated society is better than a less educated one (although I agree there’s still room for debate on what that education should entail). The issue with an open-ended handout is that you don’t know what you’ll be getting more of.

[eru]

> So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing.

That's where we disagree, I guess.

I don't mind education in the sense of people learning something. That's harmless enough (but doesn't need special subsidies. Just give money to the needy, and let them decide whether they want to invest it in a library membership.)

What I'm against specifically is education in the sense of getting a certificate at the end. A degree etc.

That sort of education has negative externalities and should be highly taxed, not subsidised. It leads to an arms race of credentialism, and is a big reason why eg a high school graduate can't get a decent job these days.

(There are plenty of jobs that used to be done by high school dropouts, that haven't changed all that much. But now require a degree, if you want to be considered for an interview.)

[bumby]

I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody.

I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries). But I wouldn’t go so far to say credentialism as a whole is worthless. I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work.

What I do see on HN is that the crowd generally biases towards libertarian autodidacts and that colors much of their worldview.

[eru]

> I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody.

The library was just an example. People can use their own money and time to pursue whatever route they wish. They can attend schools (and pay the fees), they can go to the library, they can read Wikipedia, they can do an apprenticeship, etc, whatever works for them.

> I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries).

Alas, no. Employers aren't stupid (and neither are workers). Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity.

For an individual worker and an individual company, the credential is a useful signal. Just like it's useful for an individual country to get some extra nukes.

But from an economy-wide perspective, it's just an arms race. (Similarly, there's no global benefit from every country getting some extra nukes each.)

> I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work.

I'm not an American, but I think the FDA is pretty much useless. (But that's mostly because it's a federal agency, and the relevant authorities should probably sit at the state level at the highest or even lower. With voluntary coordination between the different states. Very similar to how traffic signs and rules are regulated and coordinated.)

[bumby]

I think your response is overly cynical. As the Oscar Wilde quote goes, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The FDA is far from perfect, but I have much more confidence buying a drug regulated by then than some pills sold at the convenient store.

>Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity.

Again, I think this is overly cynical and lacking nuance. There is debate in the economics circles on how much a college credential is signal for culture fit and how much is signal fit skills. It’s far from settled, and almost certainly a mixture of the two.

I personally think employers use credentials because they are incentivized to be risk adverse. It’s easier to defend a binary credential than to accurately gauge skillset and cultural fit through a behavioral interview. HR is concerned more with reducing false positives than letting a good candidate slip through the cracks.

I also disagree with the coordination piece at large scale. When societies get big enough, we don’t have the individual bandwidth to manage every interaction so we rely on institutions to shoulder some of that burden. I suspect that’s why you see a convergence on societies setting up a “council of elders” (ie govt) when they get to a certain size. Most of the people who lean into the unnuanced libertarian ideal tend to also lean towards certain troubles managing social dynamics.

[eru]

> I think your response is overly cynical. As the Oscar Wilde quote goes, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The FDA is far from perfect, but I have much more confidence buying a drug regulated by then than some pills sold at the convenient store.

I suggested that state level agencies can do that regulation. Why do you bring up the straw man of unregulated drugs?

Most countries are smaller than the US, and still manage to get safe drugs. In fact, many countries are even smaller than many US states. So it should be certainly possible for US states to regulate drugs. (Especially since they can cooperate, just like they do on traffic rules or the Uniform Commercial Code.)

I'm not sure why you want to paint my position here as some radical 'libertarian' fanatic? Even the Catholic Church likes subsidiarity, and it's (in theory) one of the guiding principles of the European Union. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

> Again, I think this is overly cynical and lacking nuance. There is debate in the economics circles on how much a college credential is signal for culture fit and how much is signal fit skills. It’s far from settled, and almost certainly a mixture of the two.

Aren't you the cynical one? I am suggesting that most likely employers and employees ain't idiots and know what they are doing. And you suggest 'hold one, they probably are idiots'.

> I also disagree with the coordination piece at large scale. When societies get big enough, we don’t have the individual bandwidth to manage every interaction so we rely on institutions to shoulder some of that burden.

Sure, but that doesn't mean subsidising credentialism is the only way. We have examples from successful societies in other parts of the world and in other parts of history doing just fine with a lot less of that. So your argument from universal convergence doesn't fly, when there is no universal convergence in the first place.