"The United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-glob...

That doesn't mean that that money is managed well, though.

I totally agree, but any discussion of approaches that might improve the efficacy of the spend, e.g. more competition via charters/vouchers, or creating a merit pay system for teachers, is not permitted in polite society.

The only solution in elite policy circles is to spend more. The reality is we spend plenty, but we have a structure that makes it difficult to experiment. The problem is exacerbated because the most influential members of the upper classes can bypass the problem by either paying for private schools or by taking advantage of our neo-feudal school districting system and buy into exclusive neighborhoods with "public schools" — which are open to anyone who can swing a $1M mortgage!

Nor does it specifically help men. Currently the education system is geared to helping women and some of the policies actually punish men.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-gap-boys-lagging/

Add in the fact that blue collar jobs are declining, most men are going to ask what is the point of trying. The answer they get back from society is one that they are unneeded.

The US also spends more per person on healthcare, yet has worse outcomes[1]. Cost is not always a good indicator of quality.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20...

Are you arguing the US Educational System is rigged to maximize corporate profits? Don't we largely have "single-payer" education? Is the issue local control? Do we need to federalize it? Nationalize Addison-Wellesley so they no longer profit from producing text books and curriculum packs?

I don't know. I suppose my comments on a rigged system were premature since I don't know the US educational system enough to know if it is rigged. The main point I was trying to convey is that often times, spending is not a good indicator of quality. I've edited my old post, thanks for the comment.

Nonsense. Unemployed people in poverty is no more the fault of businesses who don't need their skills than it is the fault of workers who fail to provide skills that businesses need...

This isn't about fault or blame. This is about keeping a healthy surviving economy and society over the long term.

The fact that many people are becoming unemployable is no fault of their own, and it's not the business' fault that don't need their labor. But as a society we need to decide what to do about it, because covering our ears and closing our eyes and yelling LALALALA and pretending it doesn't exist or will go away on its own is only going to make the problem worse.

But they do need their skills, they've just found a way to get it a lot cheaper by manufacturing in countries that don't have much in terms of environmental or worker protections. One is our neighbor. All they had to do is give a little cash to some campaigns. The ROI on that must have been incredible.

Yes. Complete non-sense. I, too, can't wait until society's only working class citizens unburdened by debt and above the poverty line are software engineers, lawyers, and doctors. Everyone else should have, upon becoming unemployed, mastered more economical skills. We are fortunate that labor force participation is actually just that simple.

It's a fault of business for seeking to reduce the tax load that would provide society with the resources to retrain/etc.

When you offshore clothing production to a country where you can pay your employees $1/day, are you doing it because Americans are dumb and can't provide you with the skills you need? Which skills? The skill to survive in a homeless shelter?

Never mind that if every other business followed suit, they would destroy their customer base...

I'm not sure I would call that an externality. The newly-unemployed worker whose job was just outsourced is part of the transaction. I understand "externality" to refer to economic consequences to uninvolved parties, like when a company sells gas to an automobile owner which causes pollution which affects everyone else.

They can. It's called the UBI TAX :)

UBI isn't a tax, it's a payout. It's typically linked with a land value tax.

Why link it to land value, which could hurt retired people who own their homes but have fixed incomes? Wouldn't a better alternative be to tax corporate income and close loopholes that allow them to pretend they're Irish (or wherever) companies? Google and Apple could certainly afford to pay much more than homeowners.

This. Corporations are where the money saved from automating jobs winds up. They are sitting on larger and larger cash stores. Facebook and others have one engineer per million people. Only corporate shareholders win, and only indirectly.

Bernie would have been a great UBI candidate.

>Google and Apple could certainly afford to pay much more than homeowners.

Total private land value in the US is in the trillions.

Google and Apple could hardly make a dent in paying for a UBI.

That's not the point. Landowners don't make profits from automation as much as corporations do. As automation grows, we capture that savings and redistribute it to the working class and unemployed class equally.

Social Democracy!

>Total private land value in the US is in the trillions.

>Landowners don't make profits from automation as much as corporations do.

Much of that land value is due to demand for space rather than productivity. Corporations generate wealth by adding value (at least theoretically) and benefit greatly from automation, so there is cash flow to tax.

Google and Apple are hardly the only corporations. They were just convenient examples of those who are successful at large-scale tax evasion and yet enjoy a generally good public image, along with Amazon, Facebook, et al.