The history of social welfare in America shows a continual waxing and waning of government services in response to social needs. History has demonstrated that non government intervention has not succeeded as well as government intervention where professionals determine actual need and take appropriate action. The use of non professionals and charities has typically led to uneven funding and poorer results historically. As the radical right proceeds to dismantle the safety net and “defer” to private funding efforts or to profit motive agencies where the profit motive leads to diminished services and poorer quality with consequently worse outcomes, the social changes will effect all classes, albeit unevenly. In the long run the attainment of entire society will be lessened. For example, business expansion is often dependent upon an analysis of risk and the lack of social safety nets inhibits growth. Of course there are parasitic businesses which “outsource” the cost of employee benefits such as health care to the local ER and the society at large. These businesses deserve even more contempt then the ignorant teen who has a baby she cannot afford. The businesses should know better. The middle class is unable to achieve as much upward mobility as service cuts and cuts in higher educational funding helps to undermine upward mobility. The result is less innovation, less business growth and less discretionary income in the middle and lower classes resulting in the further inhibition of social growth. The dearth of social services creates other costs as well. Those who cannot go to college preclude a labor force of needed expertise. Employers complain and need to create expensive training programs or they cannot meet expansion goals. As another example, the cost of private health insurance versus a demonstratively more cost effective universal health insurance inhibits growth. The failure to… Read more »

Justin,
1. With respect to education, it is not a historical precedent, it is a cross cultural one looking at relative social standing and life styles within the different cultures dichotomized by educational access as well as evidence based on some data from the CA State College System before and after Ronnie Ray Gun.
2. If companies want certain training not offered, then let them create the courses in a cooperative arrangement with the college or university whenever that is more cost efficient. This has been done to some extend and CCRI has a few examples of this cooperative partnership. Otherwise if there is just highly specific skills needed that are not worthwhile outside of that company’s environment, such training must be a company’s prerogative. I would nonetheless argue that a well educated employee is an asset overall anyway, not just for the company, but for the society at large.
3. Specialization as practiced by many countries may also be very worthwhile here, whether it be similar in nature to the Brooklyn High School of Science or a direct specialization in art, language, music, sports medicine, etc., preening students to be the best they can be in their areas of high aptitude and high interest.
In any event the point is that social safety nets are in the interest of the nation and it is therefore in the best interest of the nation to promote higher education for all that can benefit. It is also in the best interest of the country to maximize the health of its people e.g., health care for all, and so on. Left to private resources there has not been consistent success. In these cases,it is the historical data which shows social good is best promoted by trained professionals serving that good.