A couple of generations ago these were uncontroversial statements, now most people think you are crazy for suggesting such a thing. I think you can trace a lot of the problems in the western world back to this.
Subsidizing college education, at least, has a reliably positive ROI.
By far the worst offender.
> health care for wealthy retirees
Theoretically, they paid into the system to get their dues.
> Subsidizing college education, at least, has a reliably positive ROI.
There's evidence at the State level, at least in many states, it does not pay for itself.
For what it's worth, I see arguments like this all the time. Might just be the corner of the information ecosystem you hang out in.
> Subsidizing college education, at least, has a reliably positive ROI.
Maybe it did in the past, where the greatest marginal gains were. Does it still hold true now? Over a third of the US has a bachelor's degree. Is there a reliably positive ROI to society in taking that third to, say, half?
> A couple of generations ago these were uncontroversial statements
I don't believe those strong assertions you're making were uncontroversial at any time, and are likely objectively less true now than they were in the past.
You could copy-paste these statements to describe American healthcare vs European healthcare and get a very different reaction. Even though it's true for that field too.
Why the actual fuck does a humanities degree cost anywhere near as much as an engineering degree? Literally all you need is some professors and a space to teach in. You could run them in co-working spaces, parks (weather permitting), or coffee shops ffs, with no administrative staff or other bloat. (For real: small seminars in a coffee shop or a public park would be dope)
Education is beneficial to society and making it cheaper makes it more widely accessible. You and the person you responded to actually agree on a lot.