by
John Hills
[...] there are lots of things that money can buy, such as:
- high-quality pre-school care
- houses in the catchment areas of the best-regarded state schools (which then command a significant premium)
- after-school activities, private tutors, etc
- private schooling
- parental support in going on to tertiary education (and reduction in the worries associated with student loans)
- support in taking a Master's degree (for many better-paid careers this now represents the same basic required qualification that a first degree did a generation ago)
I believe he uses this list to explain why parents need cash benefits in addition to services. but most of these are things THAT SHOULD BE SERVICES. pre-school should be free. 'catchment areas' are dumb. after-school activities should be free. private tutors are probably unnecessary if you just make public education better. private schooling--don't even. tertiary education should be free (that covers the last two points).
actually, i should think more about the catchment area thing. why are these houses more expensive? who does the money actually go to??? to the seller? why should they need more money? surely if they were planning to sell the house anyone they would do it anyway, without a premium? and if they weren't, but just wanted to cash in, then maybe that's not a good reason? just another case of a 'free market" result in an inefficient system
basically the evidence he lists points to a much, much more overwhelming problem (and thus asks for a much more radical solution) than what he is suggesting