So lets put it another way, since you want to get into arguments over the value of green pieces of paper. $40k worth of subsidies for education are about 2500 hours of labor from a median laborer. Are you willing to force 25 median Americans to work 100 hours each, just so that their waiter can party for 4 years and maybe quote Beowulf?

The output of those 2500 hours of labor are what makes the green pieces of paper worth something.

But then there is the printing presses, which are guarded and the vaults that are guarded and the software systems that are guarded and the counterfeiting laws none of which you created.

I have, however, paid far more than my fair share for this service, which probably amounts to only a few dollars per person per year. It's also dishonest for you to bring public goods into this. We are discussing redistribution of wealth in the form of private goods, not public goods (such as anti-counterfeiting, police and fire protection).

Now, you might argue there are public benefits to education (e.g., a well educated labor force is more productive). But that is irrelevant for this discussion - we are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them.

Also, this is twice that you've pulled out this 40k figure. Is that from some other article? I didn't think most degrees are subsidized that heavily, or that most college students have access to funding at that level, although if you have sources you'd like to cite, I'd be interested to see them.

[W]e are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them. Three points: (a) it's not always obvious whether a person's education is being put to productive use. Taking a job which directly requires that education is only one way a person might put their education to productive use. (b) among people who aren't putting their education to productive use, are these really all about choice? All of the friends I have that graduated in the past couple years who haven't ended up in jobs which specifically required their education haven't chosen to not make productive use of their education. The job market for a lot of areas is tough right now, and a new graduate attempting to put his or her education to good use has to compete with more experienced applicants even for low level positions. (c) even if they haven't found jobs where they can put their education to good use yet, doesn't mean they won't when the job market changes. I think a lot of the people you'd like to paint as being deliberately bad investments are actually victims of poor economic circumstance.

Many of those people are not choosing not to make productive use of it, but failing to find a good way to do it. I have an acquantaince with an MA in English literature who was unable to find any job related to it, my own wife failed to find any reasonable job with a BA in History and is pursuing her MA so she can teach at the community college, hopefully.

You could say that they deliberately chose degrees that are hard to market and I would agree, but once they had those degrees neither of them chose not to use it deliberately. Also, I know that is anecodatal, but I strongly suspect a fair number of those PHDed waiters failed to find employment in their field rather than chose not to.

No, but I'm willing ask they put in that amount of work to subsidize college students based on the probability that they'll later make a net contribution to society, including the laborers - if that probability is high enough. You are counting the costs while avoiding any calculation of the benefits, as if you knew with certainty which students entering college would never progress beyond being waiters afterwards.

I might as well say we should stop funding all training of doctors, because every year some of them lose their license to practice medicine, or that we cease funding mathematical research because some of recipients perpetuate logical fallacies on the internet.

So they are permitted to say no?

... based on the probability that they'll later make a net contribution to society, including the laborers - if that probability is high enough.

Try to pay attention. I was responding to a comment by elbenshira questioning whether it was a waste even if the education goes unused. I was asserting that it was a waste in that case.

Of course, that's what elections are for.

Try to pay attention (...) I was asserting that it was a waste in that case.

You were asserting that the wasted subsidy could be equated with the efforts of 25 laborers working 100 hours each. By that logic, 25 other laborers working the same amount might end up subsidizing the education of a student who becomes a great industrialist. Should they break out the champagne?

Tax payments go into a pool, and a proportion of the amount spent on educational subsidies will be wasted. What matters is the overall rate of return.

I'm confused - if I vote against subsidizing other people's consumption, I'm not obligated to do so?

Or perhaps you are confused and believe that 2 people (aka, a majority) threatening 1 person with violence is not force.

By that logic, 25 other laborers working the same amount might end up subsidizing the education of a student who becomes a great industrialist.

And in that case, it might be worthwhile, depending on whether the public benefits of the great industrialist outweigh the public costs. Assuming education is what enabled this person to become a great industrialist, then it probably is worthwhile.

Again, let me repeat: elbenshira questioned whether it was a waste even in cases where there is no public benefit, only a private benefit. That's what I was responding to.

Laws are enforced with violence. Don't kid yourself on that.

Ensuring that the resources they take from the private sector are used better than they otherwise would have been should be one of the primary concerns any government has when it decides to meddle in an economy because the consequences can negatively impact a lot of people.

Maybe we'll fail, but we have the right to try to change things.