Why should the 3/4 Americans without a college degree be forced to subsidize the private enjoyment of an individual? Should the government also subsidize my private enjoyment of video games, pornography or martial arts?

As an example, we're a (kinda) democratic society, and a lot of the sanity of our government and policy rests on the judgment of the citizenry.

If that is the case, would you favor denying the vote to people unable to make correct judgements, deal with political rhetoric or form opinions about highly technical issues? It seems that filtering the noise is far cheaper than increasing the signal, in this case.

OK, I think maybe it's worthwhile to distinguish between the issues of (a) whether higher education has a value and function beyond job training and placement and (b) whether higher education is worthy of receiving public funds. My response above was in response to a position I perceived you to be making with respect to (a), and not so much because of my opinions with respect to (b). I think there's a coherent position that could say that higher education has value beyond job placement, but which still held that it didn't deserve public subsidies. That said, I think the $40k of public funding for a neglectful English student turned waiter is an unfair characterization. It's not like we're throwing 40k scholarships after any high school graduate that moves, and most educations are not subsidized to nearly that degree.

If that is the case, would you favor denying the vote to people unable to make correct judgements, deal with political rhetoric or form opinions about highly technical issues? It seems that filtering the noise is far cheaper than increasing the signal, in this case.

That seems messed up, mainly because (a) evaluating people's sophistication with respect to those abilities is tricky and doing it in a politically neutral way is even trickier and (b) I would expect that people who weren't disenfranchised by such a policy wouldn't represent the interests of the people who were disenfranchised.

However, I do think we need more high quality, wide availability of events and materials arranged by non-partisan organizations with the intent of providing the necessary background to follow the issues.

And your second: this seems to be both a distraction (I don't see how arguing that an educated citizenry is a necessary ingredient of democracy implies that one should necessarily agree with denying participation to those deemed incapable) and somewhat misguided (seeing as we already do deny the right to vote to a certain class of people unable to make correct judgments--we call them felons).

However this data doesn't really mean much. The table shows how many poeple have thsoe jobs RIGHT NOW. Will they have those jobs forever? Likely not. If you have a phD and spend a year in a crap job looking for something better, I view that as better than just doing nothing.

In fact those numbers are just people with more than a bachelors degree. Some number of them are currently graduate students, I know plenty of graduate students who are bar tenders at the same time. This data doesn't differentiate.

It also doesn't tell you anything about how school was paid for. If you have a phD that someone paid for from a private school, and do nothing for with your life, that doesn't matter to me at all. Only when people start getting subsidized by the taxpayers does it matter.

And hey, if we're going to bitch about the cost of education to the taxpayer, I'd extend it even to phDs with jobs that are paid for by the government (professors doing research at both public and private universities funded by taxpayer grants). A lot of research is freaking useless, and it costs a whole heck of a lot more than the subsidy on loans for students.

As to your position that "filtering the noise" is easier than "increasing the signal", I think that you have perhaps...shall we say, not carefully considered the logistics involved? But leave that aside.

The danger with disenfranchising anyone, for any reason, is that of false positives. To paraphrase Blackstone, I would far rather that a hundred idiots were voting than for one wise person to be unfairly disenfranchised.

Fundamentally, society works because most or all of its members believe that they are better off as members of the existing framework than they would be by moving away, rebelling, etc. The last time Americans were bound by laws and taxes concerning which they had no voice, they threw quite a party in this little town up in Massachusetts...I think they served tea?

It makes me unhappy to be paying into a fund to enable this sort of behavior.

If your concern is with public funds subsidizing education, I would actually have greater objection to funding educations for people that go on to earn high salaries in jobs that require high levels of education -- those are students who could afford to take loans and pay them back.

That's a fair point, and I can't decide if I agree or not. But... I'd much prefer to subsidize education for someone who is going to use the skills they've learned to be productive instead of subsidizing someone going to college to have fun and feel good about themselves.

At least at a government level. I'd love to see private funding -- let people decide (in the philanthropic sense) to give money for that sort of thing. I don't think the government should be paying for 4-years of college "vacation."

I'm confused by this. Why are you happier to fund someone's education if their goals are better job placement and personal salary than if their goals are to be better, happier people? In either case, you'd be subsidizing someone else's attempt at bettering their own life -- but why is improving their income tax bracket more valuable to you than improving their wellbeing by any other metric that person might choose?

In a hypothetical scenario where you were given the choice of funding Alice's education with the certain knowledge that her degree would get her a high paying job where she'd be miserable, funding Bob's education with the knowledge that his life and relationships would be enriched but he would never earn much, would you really be happier funding Alice's education?

Because I'm not paying taxes to make other people happy.

My assumption here (and yes, it's possibly a flawed assumption) is that the person working for better job placement will -- on average -- end up contributing more to society than the person going to school because they like to read about obscure long-dead authors.

I don't believe tax money put toward education should be there to make people happy as a primary goal. It should be put there to encourage people to be productive members of society. Hopefully people find happiness along the way, but that's not my concern here.

In either case, you'd be subsidizing someone else's attempt at bettering their own life -- but why is improving their income tax bracket more valuable to you than improving their wellbeing by any other metric that person might choose?

You're putting words in my mouth here, or perhaps just misunderstanding what I'm saying. Jumping up the income tax bracket ladder is a side-effect of producing better work that ends up being a larger contribution to society.

In a hypothetical scenario where you were given the choice of funding Alice's education with the certain knowledge that her degree would get her a high paying job where she'd be miserable, funding Bob's education with the knowledge that his life and relationships would be enriched but he would never earn much, would you really be happier funding Alice's education?

In that specific case, no. I would be equally unhappy funding either of them. But you can't design this kind of public policy for specific extreme cases; you design it for the common average case.

You are presenting a false dichotomy where on one hand you have happy people who are low wage-earners/low producers, and on the other hand you have unhappy (or less happy) people who are high wager-earners/high producers.

There are people who make a lot of money who are happy, and who are unhappy. There are also people who don't make much money who are happy, and who are unhappy. Education in fields that also end up being economically useful need not be any more or less happiness-inducing than productive dead-ends, on average.

One claim which is often made by advocates of education is that it causes productivity to increase, and that the gains from increased productivity are only partially captured by the educated individual. The remainder of the gains are spread about the general population via trade (i.e., a consumer surplus).

If the educated individual is happier but not more productive, there are no gains from trade or consumer surplus to be enjoyed by everyone. Thus, the standard rationale for public education does not apply to such an individual.