>>519>how am I not "thinking correctly" when I say that paying students for learning is gonna incur the accusations of entitlement?It's not really a narrative battle, the interest group that benefits from waged learning and upskilling, is more influential than the interest group that would oppose this.
But if you are so worried about the narative. We could just flip the script and say that it was entitled to expect people to spend all that time and effort learning all that complicated stuff for free.
<normies approve of child laborthere's your lack of self awareness
>Paying wages to students is just a small filter away from child labor.This is so tiring, lets cut the pretense.
You seek to introduce child labor because you want to increase the labor supply of unskilled labor, and reduce the wages of that section of the work-force. That's the material interest you are pursuing.
Paying students wages, enables children from poor backgrounds to gain considerable social mobility. It prevents the formation of a hereditary intelligentsia cast, that erects economic barriers that only allows the children of their cast to get access to education. That's the material interest i'm pursuing.
You can look at India what cast does. A relatively small section of their society has locked out the rest of society from gaining knowledge and skills. That has shrunk their talent pool to a tiny fraction of their overall potential. It's one of the reasons why India is irrelevant in high tech.
It's a statistical effect, if you can draw talent from a larger pool, you get a lot more of it. If a large country like China implements 'wageucation', lets say in 10 to 15 years when they're rich enough to afford it. The acceleration in science and technology will be tremendous. The countries that hold on to intelligentsia cast structures will fall behind.