Quote:
|
I don't see the artificial restriction of intergenerational mobility as a case of "individual choice".
|
How can you argue it is not?
When you write "mobility", you mean on a wealth (or power) scale.
If you restrict the means to earn wealth, or what that wealth can be used for (one or both are necssary to restrict mobility), then you restrict their choices, in a bad way (bad to efficient market).
If I make <X> number of euros, and I want to spend them on living in an exclusive neighborhood, with an exotic car, and send my children to the most expensive schools, they have been class divided by ME, through my wealth, through my choice. It is a natural phenomenon, that even the most rational of us feel the urge to do (but may not participate in). But that's less important than the fact that it is, an individual choice.
Quote:
|
Their own? That isn't accurate. They're making choices for their sprogs such that education returns are harmed.
|
If you believe the only reason a student attends a very expensive school, be it early education or graduate-level, is purely for "educational efficiency", then your premise is incorrect. They do it for many reason, in part for class divide (choice), feeling important/different (really same class divide), because they perhaps didn't get to go themselves (emotional choice), because they believe that even though they may pay a huge premium on a very, very slight advantage in education, that it is still a good use of their wealth.
So, we're back to restricting their choice.
Quote:
|
We're not talking inefficiency here, we're talking of the destruction of potential.
|
I don't see this alternative though that theoretically realizes more potential than the current system. Can you elaborate on what the difference in this proposed system is?
-Mach