Comment - be civil
Hang on, if the education system isn't important, why is it the first thing both Dell and Intel cite in Friedman's piece?
"We set up in Ireland in 1990," Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computer, explained to me via e-mail. "What attracted us? [A] well-educated work force...."
"James Jarrett, an Intel vice president, said Intel was attracted by Ireland's large pool of young educated men and women...."
Being Ireland's largest exporter is a line that bears examination.. how much of that export is back to the US?
If my memory serves there's a handy little dodge of US corporate tax involved.
Which, again relying on my admittedly fuzzy memory, the NYT has covered before.. although Friedman seems to rely on possibly biased sources for all his details.
What's interesting is noting what he includes and doesn't include in his list of policies that fueled Ireland's dramatic economic improvement. For instance, he never mentioned European Union structural funds, which have been substantial.
Glad to see you copped this Eagle, unlike Friedman in his attempt to make over Ireland in his own image.
Ireland, with our dependence on U.S. FDI, is as vulnerable to major recession as the U.S. We are one major oil shock, or terrorist event, away from economic disaster. Our manufacturing sector is already being bled to lower-cost countries. IT and pharmaceuticals will probably be next, to the must lower-cost Eastern european accession states.
According to the UN Human Development Index Ireland has second highest level of poverty in the western world. We also have highest rate of suicide among males in Europe--this after ten years of incomparable economic growth. I see the effects of both on an almost daily basis in my own community.
I won't even mention the housing crisis which has made many homeowners, builders, and landlords rich, but has had an enormous adverse impact on the lives of so many ordinary working people--or large scale political corruption, including massive tax evasion by the super wealthy.
Dick,
Sure education is important, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be free, does it? I wasn't saying that free second level education was necessarily bad, but rather I was pointing out that his case for it was pretty weak given the two decades it took for the economy to take off. In fact, when I was here as a student in the mid 80s I heard many people complain about the cost of educating England's and America's workforce.
But, I think too many people talk about this notion of an "educated workforce" without thinking about it. Intel & Dell would have us believe that they chose Ireland because of the educated work-force. But, compared with whom? I'm a little dubious about the claim that Ireland's educated workforce was a deciding factor. I think that just sounds great and that's why Intel & Dell mention it.
If you think about it, both of those countries wanted EU bases. So, right away Ireland's primary competition is only other EU countries. If education is a deciding factor that means that (a) Ireland's education system is better than other the EU members' education systems and (b) this was knowable for both Dell & Intel.
No, I don't think education is a big decider. It's a given for a modern economy, yes, but not a decider. I think English-speaking is a definite plus, low corporate tax rates are a HUGE plus, 'non-union' friendliness is another big plus.
And, the case for free third level education is even weaker when you consider that the economy was booming before the first graduates of this program arrived on the market until 1999 or 2000.
Being Ireland's largest exporter is a line that bears examination.. how much of that export is back to the US?
If my memory serves there's a handy little dodge of US corporate tax involved.
Yes, internal transfers are a great way to make your tax bill lower. Ireland's low corparte tax rates make it cost effective for American (& other nations') corporations to use accounting to show that profits are earned in Ireland rather than elsewhere. If Dell, for example, buys some component from the US and then incorporates that component in a finished product sent back to the US, it makes sense to make the original component as cheap as possible and the finished product as expensive as possible in their ledgers. This has the effect of ensuring that most of the profit will "occur" in Ireland, where the tax rate is only 12%.
The IFSC is all about this process.
According to the UN Human Development Index Ireland has second highest level of poverty in the western world. We also have highest rate of suicide among males in Europe--this after ten years of incomparable economic growth. I see the effects of both on an almost daily basis in my own community.
Don't believe that Sky. The UN uses relative poverty, which means that the wealthier we get the higher the bar for poverty. If you talk to anyone over 70 and ask them about life here you'll soon realize that poverty is nearly 100% eliminated in Ireland. My mother grew up here with her parents and 10 brothers and sisters in a four room farmhouse and, yet, she'd tell you that they weren't "poor". Once you have food & shelter and other essentials, you're not in poverty.
I should have added that this doesn't mean there aren't serious social problems, but poverty is not one of them.
Interesting stuff Eagle. I'm not as troubled as you on the free education question (I agree on 3rd level, but probably for different reasons) and the time lag with economic growth. I'm not sure if someone has studied this, but I guess that a tipping-point might have been required, where not only large numbers were well-educated but they started getting jobs that stopped them leaving the country.
"Sure education is important, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be free, does it?"
So you think everyone would have automatically been able to pay for a private education?
Problem with all these "think tank" opinions is that they estimate a nation's wealth purely in economic terms. Why can't a newspaper/sociologists try and report on what's important to people in a modern democracy? Quality of life related issues such as health, working hours, family life, crime, housing, infrastructure etc. Instead we get fractured reports here and there, tidbits that are not given proper airtime and undermined statistics.
Every time Bertie gets queried on his government's performance since coming to power, he bleats on about our grote rates, our unemployment rates etc. On the quality of life issues, Bertie scores a fat duck egg, zero.
Aaaahhh! Damn capitalists! And since we've whored ourselves to the US, we've made a bed that we'll have to lie in when things go bad.
" And since we've whored ourselves to the US, we've made a bed that we'll have to lie in when things go bad."
I'm a little rusty on my Orwell, but isn't this an example of doublethink
that would make him cackle with glee?
Fret not. The US will bail you out. We'll even buy you a new bed, clean sheets; we'll fumigate your bedroom; and we'll eqip you with a new wardrobe with which to streetwalk in search of new pleasures and treasures. All this and more despite your neutrality and impudence.
Over half of Ireland's EU money was given to the farmers who make up less than 3% of the economy.
Also, if you take into account that Ireland had to sign away its fishing rights - it owns 11% of Europe's waters - then it actually turns out that Ireland has been the second largest contributor in the EU after Germany.
So you can forget the bucketloads of cash from Europe theory you have in point 3, the figures don't add up and it's tiresome at this stage to hear people parrot the crap about how Ireland became rich because of a begging bowl.
It became rich because of attracting investment, hard work and dedication. Irish people work longer hours than anybody else in Europe. Put that in your list.
P.S. Northern Ireland got three times as much EU funding as Ireland and is still a basket case.
P.P.S. Friedman did mention EU subsidies in his article.
Burgher,
Well, wealthy farmers spend their money somewhere too, no? They buy clothes and fast food meals and cars and invest in property and so on and so on.
I'm no fan of the EU as regulars here will know, but I think it's churlish not to acknowledge all that infrastructure that helped lure Intel & Dell was built with large amounts of EU dough. If we didn't have the M50 and M4 I doubt Intel would be here today.
So you think everyone would have automatically been able to pay for a private education?
We'll never know because the government insists on monopolizing the market and then using force to pay for it (taxes collected from all with penalties for failure to comply). Regardless, I'm willing to live with free second level education even if I'm not convinced that much beyond what's learned by 2nd year (14 years old) is of much real "value" to the economy. {There is much more to education than its economic value, but Friedman's article is not about that so I won't go into it.}
If the government didn't pay for anything beyond 2nd year we'd have many 14 year olds with raw ability who need the "training" to be ready to work for Intel. What we're currently doing is taking that raw material and training it for Intel. We're paying for 3 or 4 years of second level and then college/university education so that Intel will hire them. In exchange, Intel pays good wages (good tax take for all) and pays corporate taxes (again, benefits us all).
This may be a fair exchange, but I'm not sure anyone has worked it out for sure or evaluated other possible models.
Also, if you take into account that Ireland had to sign away its fishing rights - it owns 11% of Europe's waters - then it actually turns out that Ireland has been the second largest contributor in the EU after Germany.
So, maybe the EU's not a great deal after all? Were those fishing rights so valuable, really? If yes, then why didn't we behave like Iceland and stay clear of full EU membership?
It became rich because of attracting investment, hard work and dedication. Irish people work longer hours than anybody else in Europe. Put that in your list.
I shouldn't have used the word "tax" in my fourth point. The working hours issue is another anti-competitive measure that too many EU countries adore. That we signed up to the EU directive on the issue was stupid, only I'm certain it's not really enforced here. As with many things, Irish enforcement of the working hours law can be fairly lax.
I'm not sure if someone has studied this, but I guess that a tipping-point might have been required, where not only large numbers were well-educated but they started getting jobs that stopped them leaving the country.
I don't know about the relationship between education and the booming economy, but I know emigration and unemployment were much lower in the 70s than in the 80s. This was due to reckless economic management by those in charge.
So, first free education, then EU membership and a booming economy, then high unemployment and high emigration, then gradual recovery leading to the post '94 boom. Hard to see how any causal relationship between free second level education and the economic boom could be established.
I should have added that interest rates that are too low was/is another huge contributing factor. That's thanks to EMU, which gave us German rates, but none of Germany's inflexible labor market or ageing workforce or East German nightmares.
"We'll never know because the government insists on monopolizing the market and then using force to pay for it"
Perhaps I should just move past the "taxation is theft" thing and point out that the government isn't monolizing education. You can still send kids to private schools if you want.
"If we didn't have the M50 and M4 I doubt Intel would be here today"
Well the M50 isn't finished yet 40 years after its inception and the M4 hasn't even opened and Intel has been here for years so I don't know how you reach that view.
Also, how much did the EU give towards road building and where did it go?
I ask because the major infrastructure has only started in the last five years - post Celtic Tiger.
Re Farmers: the money didn't create wealth in the economy, it made a few people wealthy so you can't use EU funding as a major point in the economic boom.
The wealth has been generated by things like the IFSC, which accounts for 4% of GNP now. Charles Haughey take a bow....
Perhaps I should just move past the "taxation is theft" thing and point out that the government isn't monolizing education. You can still send kids to private schools if you want.
Yes, but that option is only available to the very well off. Otherwise, you send your kids to semi-private schools where the teachers are paid for and the curriculum is controlled by the state.
However, that's off my point in this discussion. My point was that we can't be sure if the current system is the best because the state has the monopoly. Private schools don't survive outside the state system, but on top of it. We can't judge the economic value of the state system by the numbers in private school since those in private school are still paying for the state system. It's not a free market.
Burgher, I don't really want to argue with you because you're pandering to my anti-Europeanism and pro-free-marketism. Still, I think you're being a little obtuse. The M50 may not be finished, but all Intel wanted was a good road system from Leixlip to Dublin Airport. Everything else was irrelevant. Intel couldn't care less if the M50 through Sandyford was never finished.
1989-1999 -- €30bn received from EU Structural and Cohesion funds. I don't have exact figures, but roads are often cited as improvements funded by these two EU sources.
"...but that option is only available to the very well off."
Which is why we have free education here. Do you really think that abolishing free education would make private education affordable to everyone?
"...those in private school are still paying for the state system".
My taxes are paying for teachers in private schools too. I'm also paying for roads I don't drive on, operations I'm not having and prisons I (hopefully) won't be staying in. You see where that argument goes?
Dick,
We're going off the point here, but there's no free market in any of those other items you mention either. All state monopolies.
However, it could be argued that a state funded system does not necessarily mean a state run system. The state could just provide parents with an amount they can apply at the school of their choice.
I thought that increased turf sales were the driving force. Who knew?
So what does a "free market" in roads look like? Do you have a choice of M50s to drive to work on?
You still haven't explained how abolishing free education would make private education affordable to everyone.
Now as for choice, we have at least three here: 1. state run schools, 2. private/religious fully funded (i.e. free) schools, or 3.) private schools partially funded (fee paying). Unless you want to scrap the common exam system and introduce a hotch potch of curriculums and exams, you've got to have some sort of standardisation.
You still haven't explained how abolishing free education would make private education affordable to everyone.
Dick,
Funny thing is, you're now pressing me to make a case I didn't set out to make and don't necessarily accept.
I don't think I did say abolishing free [secondary? university?] education would make it affordable to everyone, but it seems clear that people could pay up to their means to pay. I don't necessarily believe this would work for second level nor do I believe it should be the policy, but it's possible. Abolishing free university education seems obvious to me since college/university is not available to everyone, but only those who are accepted. Therefore, those who go to college should pay their own way, even if that means by use of borrowed monies, kind of like a mortgage.
My point was (& is) that we can't be sure that the system we have is the best for our economy because we have only one system and nothing to compare it with. First, I don't accept that education should be evaluated by economics alone, but that's the basis of Friedman's article and my point above. I tried early on to say that Friedman failed to make the case for free second level education, not that I necessarily thought it was a bad idea.
Having said that, let me try to address your point. Each of the three "choices" you mention is really only slightly different offering of the same product. The curriculum is identical in each of the three types of schools because the state's monopoly on standards and the university entry system means that regardless of which of the three you choose, you get essentially the same education. Furthermore, the state funding comes with all sorts of stipulations to which you must adhere, so the few choices you might perceive (for example, with regards to teaching religion) don't really exist either. Catholic seconddary schools are somewhat Catholic in ethos, but not so much in teaching. Religion classes are now far removed from catechism and prayer is virtually gone. Irish Catholic secondary schools are no where near as Catholic as the Catholic High Schools I'm aware of in NY State.
Unless you want to scrap the common exam system and introduce a hotch potch of curriculums and exams, you've got to have some sort of standardisation.
I don't see why this is such a bad idea. Why can't each county or even each school set its own standards and enforce them. Why can't we have diversity in the operation of schools? Maybe some will opt for bigger classes with higher paid teachers and others for smaller classes and lower salaries (but more teachers per student). Some schools might choose to emphasise one aspect of education, say foreign language and another school might emphasise mathematics (double classes or something). Why not have greater choice?
Each university could accept students as it sees fit, if the state was not involved.
So what does a "free market" in roads look like? Do you have a choice of M50s to drive to work on?
Until recently I couldn't envisage such a situation myself. I thought that there was no way to have a free market in roads, so we should stay with what we've got (free market in the building and maintenance, but govt. funded).
But, the UK Labour govt's recent proposal to toll all road usage via electronic tagging now makes a free market in roads more possible. Sure, there's still a limited amount of space, but if you can charge for each mile of roadway used then you can have a market in road building, maintenance and cost of usage.
I'm still not sure this will work, but it's possible. I'm open to hearing the arguments.
John, you're trying to have your cake and eat it here I suspect. You seem to want the state to fund education, but have absolutely no strings attached to funding. Funding needs to be accounted for. Can you imagine the oversight that would be required for competing curriculums and exam systems? Imagine the outcry when, as seems invariable, some curriculums emerge as half assed or below par? On the other hand, I can't see what's so bad in comparison about common standards on English, Maths, Irish etc.
The only real area of difference could be religion, since it isn't an exam or core subject. Personally, I'd be in favour of taking religion out of all state-funded schools and letting parents decide on their kid's religious education. But scrapping the public education system because some schools aren't religious enough or too religious sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.
"Why can't each county or even each school set its own standards and enforce them."
Well, how do you compare standards? How does an employer compare exam results for example when assessing candidates?
How does an employer compare exam results for example when assessing candidates?
He doesn't. He assesses the person in front of him. Or, he can have his own exam that he administers (ESB, Eircom do this anyway as do many employers). What you're admitting with this question is that the state is currently screening people for employers. Why should the state do this?
Education is one thing, but screening people for employment or university is another. Why should that be the state's role?
On the other hand, I can't see what's so bad in comparison about common standards on English, Maths, Irish etc.
You know what would happen, Dick? Some other body would become the standard setter. Most schools would adhere to virtually the same curriculum. Over time some schools might try different things to attract more or better students. Maybe greater discipline? I think an army affiliated school in a tough neighborhood would provide much better results than the current inner city VEC's are getting.
John, you're trying to have your cake and eat it here I suspect. You seem to want the state to fund education, but have absolutely no strings attached to funding. Funding needs to be accounted for. Can you imagine the oversight that would be required for competing curriculums and exam systems?
Right now my wife and I get 400 odd euros each month from the government for which there is ZERO accounting. The state trusts us to spend the money wisely. This is the child benefit allowance. Why should putting money or credits in parents' hands to be used for their children's education be any different?
Aren't you instantly mutliplying the number of exams people will have to sit? Imagine university entrance? Instead of the Leaving Cert, would people then have to sit exams for every college they're applying for? You're talking about five or six sets of exams here in a lot of cases.
I take your point about religion, since I'm coming at it from the other end. However, I don't think you've thought the rest of it through. It sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare.
I think its very frightening to hear people expressing a wish to make university level education available to fewer people. Would you have so many of us end up 50 K in debt like so many of my American and Canadian friends? I for one will never be ashamed of the fact that so many people in this country are educated to third level. And on the next occasion that some poorly educated American asks me if we speak English in Ireland, I will be reminded that there is more value to education that purely increased employment prospects.
"Right now my wife and I get 400 odd euros each month from the government for which there is ZERO accounting."
So you're saying no accounting on some things means no accounting on everything?
"I think an army affiliated school in a tough neighborhood would provide much better results than the current inner city VEC's are getting."
So you want to take some schools from one state body (VEC) and transfer them to another (army). Are you proposing the army force these badly behaved urchins to go their schools as well?
So you're saying no accounting on some things means no accounting on everything?
Okay, Dick, are you just winding me up? I'm saying, if the government gives us money to clothe/feed our children why can't it give us money or (more accountable, if you fear some parents will spend the education money in the pub) credits that we can use at the school of our choice. That leaves all the accountability up to the parents with no state oversight.
I'm not making a blanket statement about state spending or anything else. Just that parents could be given the means to pay for school and then they could choose the school. Schools would then appeal to parents rather than the Minister when they want to grow or change.
Eagle,
you say 30 billion but on the same page you link they say since joining the E.U. in 1973 Ireland has received €17 billion in E.U. Structural and Cohesion Funds support (to end 2003).
Now 17 billion is not to be sneezed at I agree but you do realise that this figure doesn't take into account contributions Ireland has made to the EU over the years.
For example, Ireland gave 1.3 billion to the EU in the 2005 budget alone. You have to subtract the contributions over 30 years from the 17 billion figure.
Also, I think Ireland's waters easily made European countries like Spain that amount in 30 years.
Don't forget that the current National Development plan envisages spending a whopping 52 billion on infrastructure and the like.
This is being paid for by the Irish taxpayer who from 2006 will be paying for the Slovaks and the like as it becomes a net contributor. What comes around goes around.
What Europe has given Ireland is a huge market and a hard currency, the euro.
As a visitor the difference in the standard of living between 1990 when I first went to Ireland and now is dramatic. Perhaps more dramatic to an outsider. Not only can I get a Budweiser, it is served cold.
The fact that people can stay home in Ireland and even return to Ireland from abroad has to be considered a blessing. The fact that there are jobs in Ireland (Hotel, bar, restaurant, department stores etc.) that Irish people won't take becuase they don't pay enough would boggle the minds of people only ten to fifteen years ago. I have high hopes for the Irish Spirit which many say will be abolished by the Celtic Tiger. If that spirit can survive centuries of terrible economic woes, it certainly can survive prosperity.
"Not only can I get a Budweiser,it is served cold."
I don't mean to trivialize the dicussion following Thomas Friedman's Op-Ed article on Ireland and the European Union--about which, I'm embarrassed to confess, I know nothing. But why would you swill down Budweiser beer-albeit "cold" Budweiser beer--in Ireland when so many other quality beers are available?
Would you have so many of us end up 50 K in debt like so many of my American and Canadian friends?
Absolutely. A university education costs a lot of money. When a student has completed their education they can expect to earn more than those who don't or can't get a university degree. Why shouldn't the degree be seen as investment?
I for one will never be ashamed of the fact that so many people in this country are educated to third level. And on the next occasion that some poorly educated American asks me if we speak English in Ireland, I will be reminded that there is more value to education that purely increased employment prospects.
I don't have the numbers to hand, but I sincerely doubt that Ireland has more people (as a percentage) with university degrees than the US has. This is despite the fact American students pay far more for their educations than Irish students do (although a large percentage of American students go to publicly funded universities).
And, I agree that an education is about more than employment prospects, but as far as taxpayers are concerned, why should they pay for your self-actualization? Why should a poor 20-year-old kid from Tallaght or Rialto or wherever whose job is sweeping out a hardware store pay more in taxes so that students can read Virgil or whatever?
So you want to take some schools from one state body (VEC) and transfer them to another (army).
I'm not actually proposing that the army run the school, although I'm sure they could. I'm suggesting that you could have a school in which the army's involved. It could also involve a religious body.
I was just throwing that one out there as a possibility. I was trying to illustrate that there are a lot of school models that don't exist here, but maybe they should. Nothing more.
Are you proposing the army force these badly behaved urchins to go their schools as well?
No, not really, but the Gardai do this already. They back up the truency officers.
Rightly or wrongly, there are loads of kids in education in this city for whom school is useless. They're not learning and not going to learn – at least not in the schools we currently have. Middle class people want those kids kept in school because they feel safer when there aren't packs of idle 14 & 15 year olds roaming the streets. In effect, the bottom rung of the education system is more a part of the criminal justice system than the state's education system.
Maybe if we had different models of schooling and a more flexible system for examinations schools that could educate such children could be developed. One model I'd like to see is a school with military involvement or military type discipline. It might work or it might not, but I'd like to see it tried anyway. What we have now is most certainly NOT working.
Teachers are demoralized and, often, fearful. The smarter, criminal types use their school years to recruit the more dim-witted among their classmates to be their underlings when these hoods graduate to more advanced criminal, drug-dealing activities.
Surely, that same kid from Tallaght can read Virgil in university if he really wants to? Despite the inevitable replies to this comment, people from poorer backgrounds do go to college. But reintroducing fees would definitely prohibit them from doing so. Swings etc.
What sort of begrudgers are there that would deny the opportunity for kids to go to college? Get a life.
But why would you swill down Budweiser beer-albeit "cold" Budweiser beer--in Ireland when so many other quality beers are available?
Enosis,
This is truly one of life's great mysteries.
Eagle & Enosis:
Every man has a right to choose his poison. Budweiser happens to be mine.
Guinness is a perfectly acceptable alternative, Murphy's quite good, Carlsburg a pleasure, and Harp if necessary. However, I draw the line at Coors Light. Coors Light is like making love in a canoe: it is f*cking close to water.
"Coors Light is like making love in a canoe: it is f*cking close to water."
Mahons and Eagle:
A cautionary tale to help us navigate the uncertain and troubled waters of life.
Surely, that same kid from Tallaght can read Virgil in university if he really wants to? Despite the inevitable replies to this comment, people from poorer backgrounds do go to college. But reintroducing fees would definitely prohibit them from doing so. Swings etc.
What sort of begrudgers are there that would deny the opportunity for kids to go to college? Get a life.
Colm, there are large numbers of kids from Tallaght who will never go to college, whether by choice or because they don't have the marks or the ability to go to college. Why should those who can't or don't go pay for those who do.
Second, if society wants to underwrite university educations for those from poorer backgrounds I find that much less objectionable than simply making college "free" for everyone. Righ now 'no fees' college is welfare for the middle classes and is being paid for by taxes collected from all, including those who are making low wages.
I'll repeat myself. I used phrases like "if he really wants to" and "people from poorer backgrounds do go to college". I fully acknowlegde not everyone can go, but most people I know got through college without their parents' help.
Education is a fundamental right. As Dick mentioned, I pay taxes for thousands of things I can't use/avail of.
"Second, if society wants to underwrite university educations for those from poorer backgrounds I find that less objectionable than simply making college "free" for everyone."
I agree, and I do so by "putting my money where my mouth is" in what many would say is contrary to my own interests:
1. $34,000 per year for son number two
for four years at Boston College from 1996-2000.
2. $40,000 per year for son number three for a five-year degree program at Northeastern University from 2001-2006.
Every kid should be entitled to a college education but it should not be a free ride for everyone regardless of income.
Education is a fundamental right.
If it's a fundamental right, then (a) there should be a place for anyone who wants one - no entrance criteria and (b) I should be able to pursue PhD's and Law Degrees forever. I'll go along the "fundamental right" path for a short ways with you, but once someone has mastered reading & writing and adding, subtracting, multiplying & dividing that's where the fundamental right ends. Nobody has a 'fundamental right' to study the breeding habits of bacteria, the 2nd Carthaginian War or Differential Equations. Those are privileges.
I fully acknowlegde not everyone can go, but most people I know got through college without their parents' help.
As did I. I borrowed $14,000 to go to college and paid it back when I started working. I spent little when I graduated so that I could eliminate my debts as quickly as possible. What I see here today is almost obscene. 22 year old graduates, without debt, are earning huge salaries on the back of the free education they got, paid for by suckers who never had the same opportunity. These high earners are now driving brand new cars, buying/renting apartments (& driving up prices/rents), going away twice a year, etc.
I should add that I loved Differential Equations. One of my favorite courses in college.
"...but once someone has mastered reading & writing and adding, subtracting, multiplying & dividing that's where the fundamental right ends."
Jeez, it looks your view of a fundamental right to an education ends after eighth grade or, at most, after the student finishes high school (twelfth grade). Say it ain't so, Eagle.
Enosis,
Yes, I probably do think the fundamental right ends where I said it does. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't accept that there's public good in educating beyond that. In fact, I will say that there is great public benefit to educating people beyond the basics. It's because I think we all benefit that I do believe in publicly funded second level education.
When people talk about a "fundamental right" they mean that they should be able to access that right at the public's expense. When it comes to college education I disagree with that. I do think everyone should have the right to 'buy' as much education as they want. Anyone who wants to do a PhD on the court of Henry II should be entitled to do so, but not at the public's expense.
If I'm mistaken about what Colm meant by a "fundamental right" then I'm sorry about that.
By the way, I'm willing to agree that my definition of what constitutes the minimum education for the fundamental right may be too narrow, but somewhere an arbitrary line must be drawn. Otherwise, someone can claim that they have a fundamental right to do endless masters degrees. There has to be a limit.
"No, I don't think education is a big decider. It's a given for a modern economy, yes, but not a decider."
It's important, but the problem with Friedman's analysis is that Ireland's free and subsidized education is based on the Continental European model, not that of the USA (where education is definitely not state-subsidized).
"I think English-speaking is a definite plus"
And I strongly disagree. There are plenty of former British colonies with large pools of English speakers that are nonetheless utter economic and political basketcases-- Botswana, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone for example. In contrast, countries like Japan, China, South Korea and Costa Rica-- where they use non-English languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Spanish-- are very successful. Economic success has nothing to do with the language you speak-- it's a product of what you do in the language that your country speaks.
"Low corporate tax rates are a HUGE plus"
Which Ireland is availed by special circumstances not attainable by other richer, more established countries.
"'non-union' friendliness is another big plus."
Yet Ireland has especially strong labor unions, much like Continental European countries.
Commenting by HaloScan
