A post by 
Essentially, educational systems have been developed as part of the tax cycle, a deal between government and industry where the governments train people to become workers that industry leverages to create their products. This in turn creates profit and income tax, something that people pay at a much higher percentage than industry, especially with creative accounting practices to which large business has access.
The problem of course is that in order for the education system to be sustainable, there has to be enough workers created who create and pay enough taxes to cover the costs and, the edcational systems are not light. For example, Finland spends about 7.1% of the total GDP on education, UK 5.1% and the USA 4.9%. These are not small amounts. For comparison, the US spends an estimated 3.3% of its GDP on military, 30% less than they do on education. That is what is on the books anyway.
With increasing unemployment due to automation and optimization of supply chains as well as increasing costs in other areas like healthcare, the education systems are in a precarious financial position. The automation of industry also means that fewer and fewer workers are needed in the foreseeable future and with the rapid changes in field requirements, most of the educational systems are not providing training suitable for future workers, let alone for jobs that pay them well enough to be in higher tax brackets. On top of this, unemployment among the younger generations is increasing.
What interests and concerns me about the trend is not that the fiances are broken and the relationship between industry and government education is dissolving, it is that people have an expectation that the government has their best interests at heart at all. Institutional education is based on employment needs and if there is no need for workers, why have schools at all?
Of course, there is always need for education and certification across various fields like medical but, those degrees already have a high bar in most places to enter and, are essentially guaranteed a high return and participation rate from graduates as monetary incentives are aligned, they earn well. General education however has a decreasing utility for industry and high school is just a sorting system to see who qualifies for specialization. Since there is a decreasing financial return on general education due to lack of employment, the cost of institutional services keeps increasing per head.
In a country like the US where students are largely forced to go into debt to get higher education, this creates economic barriers to entry which has its own set of ramifications, especially for those who can't afford to go. In places like the EU where education has become largely a citizen right, the cost is increasing rapidly while the participation rate and level of work decreases. Combine this with all of the other economic pressures, it is untenable.
For students, they are somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place as society has been designed to value educational certificates for employment but, to get one the price is increasing. Society meanwhile has been encouraged to spend their way into increasing levels of debt without consideration that one day, they may have to pay for their children's education. Essentially, they have taken it for granted that it will always be free or, affordable. What 'free' and 'affordable' means is, subsidized by the state using tax payer money. But, without enough tax coming in, maintenance is impossible.
A big part of the issue is that while education is important, so too is the practicality of the educational system so the purpose of the education needs to be considered. Is a degree in art history valued the same as a degree as a dentist? Does art history require a degree to take part in the art industry? When it comes to some positions, the certification is vital, like medicine where quality standards are literally life and death. There are also other industries that benefit heavily from standardized education also, like accounting practices. But, does fashion require a degree and, should it be subsidized by tax payers?
This gets into some pretty iffy territory doesn't it because while people feel they have the right to get whatever education that interests them, that education doesn't necessarily have to come with a formalized degree attached. For example, Eliezer Yudkowsky who is at the forefront of artificial intelligence development and theory dropped out of school and is self-taught and holds no academic degrees. Does that make him an idiot? On a side note, his development foundation is flush with money thanks to donations from supporters earned from crypto investments.
What has to likely happen in the near-ish future is that education has to be rethought and a paradigm shift made on what its purpose is for us, the people. Currently, education is a needed part of the narrative in order to fulfill life goals, get a good job, buy a house, car and retire comfortably. That narrative is failing and, failing fast considering that we are continually borrowing more and more from the future. Many who think thy are safe in retirement because of their funds are likely in for a rude shock when it comes to cash out what they have put in.
What people need to consider is whether a degree is necessary and if they deem t so, they should likely be prepared to pay for it as the funding cuts to education are going to likely continue as the employment market shrinks and becomes much more narrow in scope.
What I do think however, is that there is the possibility here to breakaway from the centralized education systems through decentralization and blockchains. This would essentially allow for accreditation and standardization where necessary while being able to deliver it in a much more controllable and efficient process at global levels, with high trust and confidence in quality.
This has the added benefit of cutting out the middleman governments and to a large degree the business agreement with government, as the industries themselves can build tailored educational services for their purposes. It redistributes the responsibility of education to those who require skills and, allows for a higher potential for more people to take part and get educated. This would be then a system of self-funding industry and directed by those who have both something to gain and, something to lose in the way they operate. Sensitive training better fits the market needs and end user creating profits for less, poor fit means the market decides.
I haven't thought all of this through at a very deep level but we can't both want to reduce the power of government and simultaneously have them fund our education as it will always lead to a misalignment of incentives and purpose. At the end of the day, we have to take responsibility for our own development as individuals and communities and stop relying on the agreements between government, industry and bank to hold up under the pressure of constant optimization that aims to continually reduce costs and increase profits.
When we think of getting an education we generally think of the schools provided us yet, when it comes to what we really value in life itself, those same institutions didn't deliver any of it. What they did was program us to be leveraged for profit. While protesting the cost of education, people should be thinking about what is actually important to learn and whether the only way to get that information is through a centralized authority looking to make bank.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
View this post on Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface