Well, to put it simply, providing only sufficient education for a subsistence lifestyle is not good for the economy. It is among the reasons that the US is beginning to fall behind other nations.<quoted text>
I did, and I realize that. But I'm certainly not going to support the public paying for education that is more than the minimum necessary for an individual to support himself at sustenance level. If you want a career above and beyond that (if you want a more opulent lifestyle, or you want to raise a family), YOU pay for the education required, or get someone WILLING to help you.(Do you ever really examine your own mindset? Why on Earth should someone else pay for your perks?)
I don't see the relevance to what was being talked about.
You see education only as a means to provide perks to workers. It is much more than that. It is the means by which work is done, reasearch accomplished, wise governance choices made.
Our national high school graduation rate prepares a workforce sufficient for the job needs of the 1970s--but not that of this century. As a result, the kids who don't even make it to graduation (and this is as much a result of school system choices made years previous to the individual's choice to stop showing up as it is to those individual choices) wind up jobless and on the streets, ultimately headed for prison. Again, the US leads the world in incarceration rates.
Now, we could debate who should pay for education beyond high school, but the reality is that far too many who graduate high school and attempt college (regardless of who is paying for it) must first take remedial coursework in mathematics and reading/writing. A college is a pretty expensive place to fill in the gaps of what is not learned prior to high school graduation. And these days most post-high-school programs (technology, career-tech, apprenticeship, etc) need about the same level of math and reading skill as college programs. But we are not meeting it.