Does free education make sense in a globalised world?

[NosPortatArma]

It is often said by proponents of immigration, that accepting immigrants has the benefit of the state getting additional tax payers without having to pay for their education. This is true, but it raises the question of wheter it makes sense for a emigrant emitting country to invest in their workforce's education, if their workforce can just leave their country anyways. For example I live in Sweden and I study at university at the moment, and it is paid for by the state, but I am free to emigrate to another country when my education is done. If Sweden pays for my education, but I leave, and work and pay taxes in another country, was it really a good investment by Sweden? doesn't seem very worthwhile.

It seems to me that in an increasingly globalised world, where it is becomming easier for people to move around, it also makes less sense for countries to generously invest in their citizens education with no strings attached. A situation in which some countries are effectively paying for the education of another country's workforce is not sustainable. Atleast not from the perspective of the emgirant emitting country.

A simple solution to this problem seems to be to tie the cost of the education to the individual. In other words: loans. If instead of paying for my education outright, sweden lended me money, it would not matter if I moved to another country since i would still have to repay the loan. This way, countries could make sure that their investments into citizens education would always pay off, or atleast not be completely thrown away.

What do you think about this? is free education compatible with globalisation and liberal immigration policies? Will countries be moving in a direction of individualising the cost of education?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Part of this discussion rests on the premise that immigrants contribute to the economy and pay taxes...

In the USA it is estimated that immigrants [legal and illegal] cost the USA about $296 billion each year more than they contribute.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-year-natio/


Immigration drains the government, sapping as much as $296 billion a year from federal, state and local taxpayers while depressing wages, at least in the short run, according to an authoritative study released Wednesday by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.


The 500-page academic tome is supposed to be the final word about the fiscal and economic effects of mass immigration, and its findings challenge some long-held assumptions of Washington policymakers that immigration is an unqualified benefit.


The data show that immigrants take more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Although immigrants do boost the size of the economy, the gains are heavily skewed toward the immigrants themselves and to wealthy investors — not to native-born workers who end up competing with the new arrivals.



***

In short, I do not believe that any reasonable, rational, coherent case can be made that immigrants actually contribute to the economy in any meaningful sense.


Indeed, almost all of the Middle Eastern refugees in the USA are on food assistance and a super-majority are on cash assistance.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...n-food-stamps/

[NosPortatArma]

Part of this discussion rests on the premise that immigrants contribute to the economy and pay taxes...

I would say that it is implied in the OP that I am not talking about immigrants in general, but educated ones. "immigrants" are per definition a very diverse group. It's stupid to make sweeping generalisations about them as a whole... some immigrant groups do perhaps not contribute. Others, like the well educated ones, certainly do. I'm sure you know that a large part of silicon valley start-ups are made by immigrants? thus, to argue that "immigrants do not contribute" is just ridiculous. I will however point out that it is equally ridiculous to draw the conclusion that it is therefore a good idea to let all kinds of immigrants in. As i've said, immigrants are a very diverse bunch, some are clearly more worthwhile than others to let in.

In general, I find the current polarised debate on the issue to be stupidly framed. It's either ALL immigrants are bad, or ALL immigrants are good. Two equally stupid positions, but that is how modern politics are i suppose.

[Ludicus]

I live in Sweden and I study at university at the moment, and it is paid for by the state, but I am free to emigrate to another country when my education is done

Sweden: Am I required to pay? - Universityadmission
In Sweden (and Denmark) a free higher education is only possible for EU students and EAA students.Are you a EU citizen? well, what about the high living costs in Sweden?
There are also many countries in EU and worldwide where students are able to study for free or for a very affordable amount. So, what's the problem?
If you hate the Swedish educational system, go to a US University and pay - you should be coherent with your political positions,don't bite the hand that helps you.

[NosPortatArma]

Sweden: Am I required to pay? - Universityadmission
In Sweden (and Denmark) a free higher education is only possible for EU students and EAA students.Are you a EU citizen? well, what about the high living costs in Sweden?
There are also many countries in EU and worldwide where students are able to study for free or for a very affordable amount. So, what's the problem?
If you hate the Swedish educational system, go to a US University and pay - you should be coherent with your political positions,don't bite the hand that helps you.

read AND understand the OP before replying

[Iskar]

The first reply to the OP is an obvious case of stopping to parse a text on encountering the word "immigrant" and instead defaulting to the "rant about mass migration" routine, which, sadly for him, happens to be completely unrelated to the OP's question.

As for the actual point, I would agree that free education can lead to monetary loss for countries in an age of high mobility even for middle and lower classes (unless you go soviet style and lock your "citizens" in). However, what one needs to consider is that reducing politics to the monetary or even economic dimension is sure to miss important aspects. The question is thus not so much "How are we going to get the money back we pour into education?", but "How much money are we ready to pour into education to achieve our goals?".
What may be the goals of providing free, hopefully high quality education?

Firstly, the one mentioned by the OP, monetary gains from well educated people doing highly qualified jobs in your country, contributing to higher tax revenues. This is of course prone to loss by emigration, although one should not neglect people's reluctance to moving away from family and home just for the sake of more money. (If people are moving away because they could not get a job at home in the first place your economy is screwed anyway, requiring a solution of different problems than how education is funded.)

Secondly, well educated citizens are better prepared to take informed political decisions, weigh options in a complex world and hold politicians accountable. As such providing education to as many citizens as possible, most easily done by free education, contributes to the long-term stability of your democracy. This, in the long-term in turn contributes to legal stability and rule of law, providing favourable circumstances for business, thus intermediately helping your economy as well, although this is hard to quantify, given the many varied factors, interdependent and long-term interactions.

Thirdly, you may have an interest in increasing average education levels for all mankind, for humanitarian reasons, and considering that even if educated people emigrate they contribute to their new country's educated class, increasing its tendency towards democracy, which is a good thing for you of your country is a democracy as well. (Obviously, if you're an autocrat you have no real interest in widespread education. As long as people are busy scraping and don't understand politics you're pretty safe.)

What happens if you introduce paid education?
Even if you install a way to repay the education debts you are putting richer people at a large advantage, as they can attain the higher education without personal risk of being ruined. A poor person on the other hand has the risk that despite higher education they cannot find a job afterwards, leaving them with huge debt and no income. As such, the mere prospect of possible financial ruin discourages poor from acquiring higher education at a disproportional rate.
On the positive side, though, you generally disincentivise people not suited to higher education, so they look for other, probably more practical jobs fitting them better. You (as the state) also have a better chance of securing direct monetary refund from the individuals, although those failing to find a job are likely to default on their debts, leaving you with nothing AND an unemployed poor in your economy.

All in all, I think the advantages of free education outweigh the disadvantages as long as you do not restrict yourself to the monetary aspect. Of all the things you can spend money for as a government, education is probably the one with the largest longterm impact on productivity, political stability and technological advance, even if some people take their education and leave.

PS: As a final note, I need to mention a possible bias on my side as a German. Here paid education (beyond mere administrative fees at unis) always reeks of buying your diploma, while state institutions are, despite all their known flaws, still seen as the best way of acquiring any level of education. This may be a remnant of Prussian mentality and how they set up state schools first in Prussia then in the rest of Germany. I still think that my above arguments hold generally, maybe with small corrections.

[NosPortatArma]

The first reply to the OP is an obvious case of stopping to parse a text on encountering the word "immigrant" and instead defaulting to the "rant about mass migration" routine, which, sadly for him, happens to be completely unrelated to the OP's question.

yes indeed, and the second reply to the OP is a case of encountering the words "does free education make sense", and giving a knee jerk "if you hate it, move to another country" reaction, completely missing the point of the OP. how annoying..

If people are moving away because they could not get a job at home in the first place your economy is screwed anyway, requiring a solution of different problems than how education is funded.

of course this isn't a problem for well functioning countries like Sweden, but for less developed countries, brain drain is a real problem, is it not? From the point of view of a poor underdeveloped country, does it make sense to essentially educate the workers of rich western countries? maybe a doctor could get a higher wage my moving, but his old country might still have need of a doctor. It is a clear case of where the individual interests clashes with the country's.

Secondly, well educated citizens are better prepared to take informed political decisions, weigh options in a complex world and hold politicians accountable. As such providing education to as many citizens as possible, most easily done by free education, contributes to the long-term stability of your democracy.

I'd say it's just the opposite, ironically enough. The most well educated citizens are the ones who are most likely to be conscious of how bad the situation in your country is, compared to others, and also be aware of the option to emigrate, and also likely to have the means. In short, educated people are unlikely to stay in poor underdeveloped countries, thus leading to the negative spiral where the people who could transform a country into a developed democracy simply leave it instead. And the people who are left behind are the poorest, and least educated, which leads to war, fragmentation, and all the things we don't want. Immigration acts as a "safety valve" for authoritarian third world countries, insofar as a large chunk of the pro-democratic opposition will simply move out of the country if things get bad enough.

Thirdly, you may have an interest in increasing average education levels for all mankind, for humanitarian reasons, and considering that even if educated people emigrate they contribute to their new country's educated class, increasing its tendency towards democracy, which is a good thing for you of your country is a democracy as well.

The two most common cases are: educated people moving from poor country to rich country; and educated moving from rich country to another rich country. Very rarely does educated people move from rich countries to poor countries, which would be the most in need of an influx of democratic thinking. i think it's funny to put the burden of selflessly educating the world's masses on the shoulders of poor countries, who are de facto educating workers for the rich west. quite an unfair arrangement i'd say.

Even if you install a way to repay the education debts you are putting richer people at a large advantage, as they can attain the higher education without personal risk of being ruined. A poor person on the other hand has the risk that despite higher education they cannot find a job afterwards, leaving them with huge debt and no income. As such, the mere prospect of possible financial ruin discourages poor from acquiring higher education at a disproportional rate.

could this problem not be easily solved by treating this as if the state is effectively buying "stocks" in the individuals, so that they only repay if they actually get a job? If they go "bankrupt" they need not pay anything, so there's no disincentive to seek higher education. So basically, if you win you pay us back, if you lose it's okay.

All in all, I think the advantages of free education outweigh the disadvantages as long as you do not restrict yourself to the monetary aspect. Of all the things you can spend money for as a government, education is probably the one with the largest longterm impact on productivity, political stability and technological advance, even if some people take their education and leave.

of course, and I'm not arguing for that there should be less education. I'm just concerned about the fair distribution of the costs and benefits from it. Wheras in the past, you could spend generously on educating "the people" because "the people" tended to stay in your country for the most part, so it was an obvious investment in the country. But today people are becomming more mobile, so obviously things can't continue. Some measures has to be taken to make sure a country isn't wasting money. Because not only is it wasteful, it is also unfair. For example, why should the average joe, who didn't go to university, subsidise the costly education of other people, who then simply move to another country and do not repay average joe anything? Joe has basically been robbed blind and abused. I feel this is a great injustice, do you not agree?

[Iskar]

You make a number of rather valid points. I was in fact looking at the issue from the pov of a developed/rich/industrial country. For poor countries the scenario does indeed look different.
One way to avoid the "misinvestment" might be to strike an education partnership with a rich country, as it might be in their interest that your country develops further to become a viable trade partner, with them paying a large portion of your education costs.
Of course that would not remove the possibility of people just leaving after getting their education. While it is clear that it would be against human rights to keep people from going where they want, you can try to create incentives to stay. For example making education paid, but giving loans for it that are paid back not monetarily, but by time spent working in the country, so either the country gets the money back it invested into the education or the educated people stay there and put their skills and education to good use for the country.

All of this are of course short- to mid-term measures at best, as ideally in the long-term people should be free even of incentives in their choice where to live and work, while, realistically speaking, with growing education things should improve in the country itself, reducing the incentive to leave in the first place.

PS: I think Ludicus was looking at it from the rich country perspective as well, reading it as a critique of free education in general.

[NosPortatArma]

You make a number of rather valid points. I was in fact looking at the issue from the pov of a developed/rich/industrial country. For poor countries the scenario does indeed look different.

I'd say it's the same problem, only more pronounced in the case of poorer countries. In both cases it is the case of one country essentially subsidising another. it just so happens that rich countries subsidise other rich countries by about the same amount that they get themselves subsidised by others, so it's not as big a problem for them.

One way to avoid the "misinvestment" might be to strike an education partnership with a rich country, as it might be in their interest that your country develops further to become a viable trade partner, with them paying a large portion of your education costs.

Several problems with this. Firstly, it is not likely that immigration would only be between two countries, thus it makes no sense for one rich country to pay for the education, when the people could still choose to move to another rich country. The cost has just been shifted around, but the case that one country subsideses another remains. Why would e.g. germany pay for education of ghanan workers, if ghanan workers then choose to move to the USA? Secondly, I don't think it is very much in the interests of rich countries to educate poorer countries. As long as they remain poor they have cheap access to natural resources, and markets for their industrial goods, and the general geopolitical advantages that richers countries have over poorer ones. Of course, there are advantages to trading with richer countries also, but I don't think it matters to such an extent that the west would be willing to pay for their education. Especially so when the poor countries, by necessity of having some education, will generally pay for it by themselves anyways.

Of course that would not remove the possibility of people just leaving after getting their education. While it is clear that it would be against human rights to keep people from going where they want, you can try to create incentives to stay. For example making education paid, but giving loans for it that are paid back not monetarily, but by time spent working in the country, so either the country gets the money back it invested into the education or the educated people stay there and put their skills and education to good use for the country.

perhaps the simplest solution is that the state will keep track of the cost of your education, which will be repaid as you pay taxes, but if you leave the country it becomes a regular debt which you are obligated to repay. So, while you are inside the country you are not obligated to repay it as per a regular debt, instead you repay by paying taxes. I think this is a reasonable arrangement. After all you did get an education, so do you not owe something to the ones who paid for it? It would be a good solution for states to be able to invest in their citizens, but still gaining something back regardless of wheter the citizen chooses to move.

[antaeus]

A few things to start with...

1. State funded education is not free. It is paid for through taxation. Which means higher taxes. The more people who go to university, the more it costs taxpayers. This breeds resentment from those who don't choose to go to university - which isn't logical as it's a state funded service that they could take, but chose not to - which would be like a healthy person getting upset because they never go to hospital...

2. Immigration is not viewed as positive by many governments at the moment. Borders are closing. Changing a policy because of global immigration patterns is fine, But at the moment that would mean dealing with fewer opportunities for immigrants in places like Britain, USA, Australia etc... so this argument isn't strong currently.

3. I've come out the tail end of an education system that is partly self funded by student loans. When students move overseas the loans are exceptionally difficult to recoup and often people just switch passports and fall off the grid. Others find themselves in foreign economies that don't cater to their high debt so find it impossible to pay their loans back. This equals less money for the educating country. The vast majority of students who finish their education with a loan don't emigrate to somewhere else. Which means that the local economy saddles it's best and brightest with what can be crippling debt before they've even entered the work force. The higher the education, the higher the debt. Your doctors, scientists, researchers, dentists etc etc all have the highest debt, so must recoup this through passing on the bill to customers, or in the case of research and science which is low wage... maybe never recoup it fully. This occurs way before thoughts of having a family, buying a house etc... If the majority of university graduates travelled this might make a little sense, but this isn't the case now.

So I disagree. I think anyone from a state funded education system who is looking on wistfully at a user paid, loan backed system isn't smart, and hasn't actually looked at how they operate in countries where loans are in place.

[NosPortatArma]

So I disagree. I think anyone from a state funded education system who is looking on wistfully at a user paid, loan backed system isn't smart, and hasn't actually looked at how they operate in countries where loans are in place.

as with many things, the USA is not where you turn to find a good example of it. Your system does indeed suck, but moreso for the inflated high cost of education, rather than the debts per se. I think that if you get a high paying job, you are effectively repaying your debt by paying high taxes. The question posed in the OP is about what happens when you move to another country: how do you then repay your debt? Surely you'd agree it is unfair that average joe should pay for your education, but that you just leave and never pay him back anything? What is your solution to this?

[Ludicus]

The first reply to the OP is an obvious case of stopping to parse a text on encountering the word "immigrant" and instead defaulting to the "rant about mass migration" routine

Not really,my answer is completely related to the OP's question. Universitary education/migration.

...which, sadly for him, happens to be completely unrelated to the OP's question....defaulting to the "rant about mass migration" routine

Sadly for you, you are wrong. Quote me please...(I think you should apologize )

I would say that it is implied in the OP that I am not talking about immigrants in general, but educated ones[/QUOTE]
That's what we have been talking about, free universitary education and migration.

In 1999, European Union members signed the Bologna Accords, and we have hundreds of thousands of students from Portugal to Sweden freely travelling abroad, studying and getting degrees in other countries. And why is that? the reason is quite simple, tuition fees /paid education a a major obstacle the internationalization of education and progress. Internationalisation of Higher Education - Study - European Parliament (check Europe. USA, scroll down)
A nice explanation here, from Finland,
Why do we defend free education?

It is said that education was one of the most important reasons for how our poor, small and remote country became one of the richest nations in the world.The tuition fees are defended by budget cuts and now there also seems to be a general desire to make education the individual’s own investment. Cutting back from education is short-sighted and regressive politics which must be stopped.
Tuition fees also endanger social mobility as even low tuition fees can make it more difficult for students coming from low-income backgrounds to get the education they want. It is hardly necessary to say that what we in the Western world think of as small tuition fees can be an extremely large investment to students who come from the poorest countries.

Tuition fees endanger genuine internationalisation when education is marketed only to those who have shown interest in education that comes with a fee and who are ready to pay the price. (1)

This kind of thinking is against all the aims and strategies that are drafted to justify internationalisation.
Finland has a high standard of living but our costs of living are also high. If education comes with a fee, it is possible that the international experts who have graduated here will want to go to countries which offer better value for their salaries (2). We need both international experts and tax-payers if we want to maintain our current level of social services. So tuition fees are an obstacle to internationalisation which is of utmost importance to the development of both the society and science.

(1,2) That's what you are talking about.

[NosPortatArma]

Not really,my answer is completely related to the OP's question. Universitary education/migration.

Sadly for you, you are wrong. Quote me please...(I think you should apologize )

I know, and I have already answered that question.That's what we have been talking about, free universitary education and migration.

uh, did you confuse yourself with ByzantinePowerGame? everything you quoted referred to him, not you...

In 1999, European Union members signed the Bologna Accords, and we have hundreds of thousands of students from Portugal to Sweden freely travelling abroad, studying and getting degrees in other countries.

sure, but the EU is a special case, since it's a union of countries. Paying for the education of Portugals citizens isn't much different from subsidising their cultural landmarks, or agricultural sector, which we already do because we're part of the EU. I had in mind countries which are wholly separate when i wrote the OP, not tied together by something like the EU.

If education comes with a fee, it is possible that the international experts who have graduated here will want to go to countries which offer better value for their salaries

.

wouldn't they want to do that anyways? Anyways, I am not arguing for student debt in general.. I'm arguing for debt if they choose to leave the country, so this finland case would not be affected provided they stayed in the country.

[Ludicus]

uh, did you confuse yourself with ByzantinePowerGame?

Sorry
Already edit.
--
In detail. Information refers to public or government-dependent private higher education institutions but not to private higher education institutions, if you are willing to pay the price.
National Student Fee and Support Systems in European Higher
---
And again, sorry Iskar. I'm getting old...forgive me. (I hope it's not Alzheimer. Ok,it's not Alzheimer's, but the effect sounds much the same. )

[ByzantinePowerGame]

uh, did you confuse yourself with ByzantinePowerGame? everything you quoted referred to him, not you...

I have often wondered how to prove the existence of other minds and now people are confusing themselves with me? This doesn't help my quest to defeat metaphysical solipsism.

[antaeus]

as with many things, the USA is not where you turn to find a good example of it. Your system does indeed suck, but moreso for the inflated high cost of education, rather than the debts per se. I think that if you get a high paying job, you are effectively repaying your debt by paying high taxes. The question posed in the OP is about what happens when you move to another country: how do you then repay your debt? Surely you'd agree it is unfair that average joe should pay for your education, but that you just leave and never pay him back anything? What is your solution to this?

1. I'm not American, and not a part of their education system... Assumptions at the door please

2. Fully state funded systems work on balance... As I said, the majority of students don't leave. And those who do can be balanced through immigration policy with gains from other countries. Your average Joe benefits through lower prices for everything... They're not paying for their mechanic or doctor or dentist or carpenter's student loans on top of services. Where I come from that would be a 10% reduction in price for services.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I would say that it is implied in the OP that I am not talking about immigrants in general, but educated ones. "immigrants" are per definition a very diverse group. It's stupid to make sweeping generalisations about them as a whole... some immigrant groups do perhaps not contribute. Others, like the well educated ones, certainly do. I'm sure you know that a large part of silicon valley start-ups are made by immigrants? thus, to argue that "immigrants do not contribute" is just ridiculous. I will however point out that it is equally ridiculous to draw the conclusion that it is therefore a good idea to let all kinds of immigrants in. As i've said, immigrants are a very diverse bunch, some are clearly more worthwhile than others to let in.

In general, I find the current polarised debate on the issue to be stupidly framed. It's either ALL immigrants are bad, or ALL immigrants are good. Two equally stupid positions, but that is how modern politics are i suppose.

My wife is an immigrant, I have friends who are immigrants, but they are all legal, educated, productive, and were heavily vetted.

About 2,000,000 people immigrate to the USA each year, that's approximately 1,000,000 legally/officially and an estimated 1,000,000 illegally.

I would prefer to see the number of legal immigrants around 20,000 to 50,000 and the number of illegal immigrants as close to 0 as possible.

[Prodromos]

It is often said by proponents of immigration, that accepting immigrants has the benefit of the state getting additional tax payers without having to pay for their education. This is true, but it raises the question of wheter it makes sense for a emigrant emitting country to invest in their workforce's education, if their workforce can just leave their country anyways. For example I live in Sweden and I study at university at the moment, and it is paid for by the state, but I am free to emigrate to another country when my education is done. If Sweden pays for my education, but I leave, and work and pay taxes in another country, was it really a good investment by Sweden? doesn't seem very worthwhile.

It seems to me that in an increasingly globalised world, where it is becomming easier for people to move around, it also makes less sense for countries to generously invest in their citizens education with no strings attached. A situation in which some countries are effectively paying for the education of another country's workforce is not sustainable. Atleast not from the perspective of the emgirant emitting country.

A simple solution to this problem seems to be to tie the cost of the education to the individual. In other words: loans. If instead of paying for my education outright, sweden lended me money, it would not matter if I moved to another country since i would still have to repay the loan. This way, countries could make sure that their investments into citizens education would always pay off, or atleast not be completely thrown away.

What do you think about this? is free education compatible with globalisation and liberal immigration policies? Will countries be moving in a direction of individualising the cost of education?

You're thinking of this the wrong way. The government doesn't spend on educating citizens. Taxpayers spend on educating their children. The average taxpayer doesn't really much care whether his kids stay in or leave the country, as long as they are happy.

[antaeus]

I would prefer to see the number of legal immigrants around 20,000 to 50,000 and the number of illegal immigrants as close to 0 as possible.

Oh look, I've been added to an ignore list.

This is where the anti immigration soapbox tends to fall apart. 20-50 thousand immigrants, hand vetted for quality wouldn't cover annual highly skilled emigration from smaller countries like New Zealand, Australia or Canada let alone those who leave a large country like the United States. It would lead to a situation where the US would bleed skilled citizens to other countries and in time lead to a serious deficit of the kinds of skills that the United States seriously needs - I'm talking doctors and nurses rather than just bankers and IT professionals. This already happens in places where immigration policy has been dominated by fear of bad migrants and has been tightened to prevent those bad migrants (The UK being a prime example).

This is off topic a little, but I guess when we're talking mobility of educated people the balance of in and outgoing people is part of the wider discussion...

[NosPortatArma]

Fully state funded systems work on balance...

but what about the countries for which it do not balance out, those which are net exporters?

My wife is an immigrant, I have friends who are immigrants, but they are all legal, educated, productive, and were heavily vetted.

hence why it does make no sense to claim that immigrants in general do not contribute.

You're thinking of this the wrong way. The government doesn't spend on educating citizens. Taxpayers spend on educating their children. The average taxpayer doesn't really much care whether his kids stay in or leave the country, as long as they are happy.

that would be true if the families were the units who funded education, but they are not. society funds education, so society expects something back. Society agreed to commonly fund education because it was supposedly beneficial for society. i think tax payers DO mind if someone elses son gets an expensive education and then leaves withoit paying it back. not everyone has children, and not everyone who has children has them move abroad. I dont think the average tax payer intends to just fund higher education out of charity. No, they do it because it will benefit their society. but if someone emgrates they have just ripped them off.