Why is it unfortunate? If the government organized government funded meals for children in government funded restaurants, ran by government employees, would you also find it unfortunate if regular people were able to afford feeding their own kids outside of the system, without depending on what government thinks is appropriate to feed to children? If the regular people can opt out of the system, and instead pick what their like at their own expense, why is it bad?
Because it's a strictly zero-sum situation. Removing one teacher from public teaching in favor of teaching 5 kids privately means those 15 other kids still in public school need to find another teacher. Since there's already a shortage of teachers, it seems unfortunate that the "smart move" on the individual level is to exacerbate the collective issue even more.
It might be great for your kid, sure, but overall it's pretty unfortunate.
This is not a "zero-sum situation". There's no such thing as a fixed pool of teachers that everyone is competing against. The number of teachers, who count as a teacher etc, it all depends.
For example, public schools typically demand very specific credentials before they employ someone in a teaching position. Individuals or private institutions might have different demands here. I certainly know personally a lot of people who I'd gladly hire to teach my kids, but who do not fulfill the requirements the public schools set upon teachers.
Second, there's no such thing as "shortage" in absolute terms. There is only shortage at a given price point. If government finds it hard to hire people, tough shit, maybe it should pay more, or demand less at the current wages? Government is not entitled to artificially cheap labor, and if it finds itself unable to compete for the workers, who are poached by the private sector, maybe it should just outsource the entire enterprise to organization more capable at the task?
>"There's no such thing as a fixed pool of teachers that everyone is competing against."
Maybe the definition of zero-sum, in the economic sense, is the wrong phrase. But there's still only so many people who can be (or are willing to be, qualified to be, whatever) teaching class in a public school tomorrow.
>I certainly know personally a lot of people who I'd gladly hire to teach my kids, but who do not fulfill the requirements the public schools set upon teachers.
Cool. If that was the case for all of the private teaching pods, my opinion would probably be different.
>Second, there's no such thing as "shortage" in absolute terms. There is only shortage at a given price point. [...]
Yeah, I agree, and I have no idea why the rest of the paragraph is written as if I wouldn't agree. Teachers should get paid more (and/or reduced workload) given their importance. Whatever lets to largest amount of kids grow up with a good education.
I don't think going private with 5 kid pods is going to give the largest amount of kids a good education, and I think that's unfortunate, because that seems to be the best route for teacher's who are trying to live a decent life.
As I said, I think the government should outsource the entire business. Just give parents education vouchers, and let them choose the education they want for their kids. I think every parent should be able to hire a private teacher, not only the wealthy ones.
Where I am, the good private schools charge about 30% less tuition than the public school district spends per student. This means that providing good schooling is very much possible at what government spends. Food stamps do not have to be spent on government-produced food in government stores. Section 8 vouchers do not have to be spent on government-owned housing. Why not just do the same with education?
Just out of curiosity - do you have any examples of cases where the "government" outsourced a responsibility and it resulted in both a better outcome/results and at a cheaper cost?
So I'll take it that you do NOT have any examples of the private sector privatizing a function previously done by the government (in the US) and doing it better/cheaper.... Sounds to me like you've read some Ayn Rand books thought it sounded great, but haven't put forth the effort to imagine how a fictional tale translates to real life. I don't say this as someone who is pro-government. I'd love to see things done better/cheaper. I'm just someone who wants proof not promises...
No, I just grew up in a formerly communist country, and when you ask me for an example, the nation-sized experiment I brought up is the first thing that comes to my mind. You never specified you want to ask about US in particular, and I don’t know why you reject a clear and convincing example from outside US. In fact, I find your imagined version of me, with the Ayn Rand books and all, rather insulting.
In any case, there are plenty of examples in the US as well. Private education can successfully compete with public education, despite great structural disadvantages (private schools literally have to compete with free product). Using EBT at Walmart works better than government cheese. Section 8 housing works better than the projects. VA hospitals are not exactly preferred to regular ones by the public.
In general, in the US, the government doesn’t directly run too many things other than the regulatory agencies. Most of what it does is already outsourced. The US government doesn’t build infrastructure, doesn’t design or build military hardware etc., and most people (not just the straw man Ayn Rand fans in your head) would recoil in horror at the idea of government directly hiring people, buying materials, and managing operations.
