Generally speaking, yes, there are benefits to the government investing in education. A better-educated workforce means more highly skilled work stays in the country, which means better products are invented and produced, we're more competitive in the global market, wages for the working class go up, GDP increases, and society as a whole is better off. Education spending is one of the most effective and efficient uses of government money over the long term.
Now, whether student loan forgiveness is the most efficient way to go about investing in secondary education is certainly debatable. Personally, I would rather see programs that provide free or low-cost secondary education going forward, whether that be free community college, state college, or significantly expanding programs that provide financial aid to lower-income individuals so they can afford to get an education. The fact of the matter is the costs of secondary education in this country are extremely high compared to most developed nations, many of which offer completely free secondary education to those who want it.
Free or low-cost secondary education tends to give the working class much more social mobility. When you can, at any time in life, go back and get a degree, train at a technical school and learn a new skill, it empowers people to better themselves (which in turns helps the wheels of the economy turn). Someone below the poverty line who is already working two or three jobs doesn't have the luxury of time or the money required to get educated and improve their circumstances, which is a real catch-22 sort of problem that keeps them stuck at the bottom of the ladder.
Another thing to keep in mind is that progress toward universal secondary education or similar programs will always be "unfair" to some people. In the same sense that the cost of education for people looking to go to college is much higher these days than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago. That is also unfair. So by lowering the cost of education (in whatever form) fairness is being restored more than anything.
Yes, I realize "free" education means society as a whole pays for it in taxes. The thing I don't understand is why we seem to collectively agree that it's a good use of our tax money to provide education up to the age of 18, but after that, spending a solitary cent is beyond the pale. Especially these days when a bachelor's and even in some cases a master's degree is required for many jobs that Boomers were able to get with a high school diploma.
Investing in secondary education is just as beneficial to society as investing in K-12.
Originally Posted by: earthquake