When schools ask for money, they frequently insist that the money will be made back with savings elsewhere. Popular arguments relate to reducing the crime rate and better jobs. There are serious problems with both of the arguments.
If we can reduce crime rates, there is no question that we would save money that would otherwise go to our physical prison system. As I have already explained, I do not believe that the schools are effective crime prevention. I already explained this in Misconception #19. To avoid too much repetition, I will focus on the other big financial savings that schooling loyalists like to emphasize.
The idea that we can save money by helping people get a better job is also flawed. The general concept is that if you pay more to our schools, people will get better jobs to pay back the costs. Additionally, higher paying jobs can result in more taxable income for the government.
Look what happened when we made our hard push for K-12 schooling. The value of a high school diploma plummeted, and it is now nearly impossible to get a decent job unless you continue on to college. There are dynamic components to the job market, and the argument that we can get people better jobs relies heavily on assumptions that certain components would remain the same. Let's face facts for a moment. Businesses are not going to create jobs just to support more people who appear qualified for those jobs. With more people trying to get jobs without any significant change in job openings, employers can justify reducing wages.
The truth about increasing school funding is that the money has to come from somewhere, and it does not actually result in any significant savings elsewhere. Because of this, the cost of living would be certain to increase. Ultimately, increasing school funding would only make life more expensive, not less.
No comments:
Post a Comment