“The best things in life are free.” Ugh. This claim is so annoying, and on at least two counts. First, it fails to acknowledge that the worst things in life are also free. E.g. no one ever sent me a bill for getting dumped, critically disappointing my parents or catching the Epstein-Barr virus. Oh. Also. That one time I, ahem, emitted wind during an unexpected pause at a baroque music chamber recital? Complete humiliation; completely free of charge. Second, this “best things are free” remains a popular nonsense even in a West that attaches an exchange value to almost every human condition.
You know what I mean, right? We have heard from leaders for so long about the cost of everything from smoking to depression to family violence, we sometimes think about human experience in this way: it’s never free, it always comes with a cost.
We may not wish to think, for example, of family violence as “costly”. We may wish to think of it as it is: horrific, complex and of urgent concern no matter the cost. But, we may feel persuaded or even obliged to say that family violence is best measured by cost. If large numbers agree that violence has a cost to a , or to an , then, a program for the prevention of violence may be funded.
We as individuals are so deep into debt for a range of reasons, and one of them is the stupid cost of stupid houses in decent school zones, and another is the stupid cost of stupid private education.
Now. Not to be all Imagine No Possessions hippy sunflower about the whole thing, but: WTF? If, as seems to be the case, many Australians are regularly subject to physical and emotional trauma in their homes, then, perhaps, “cost-effectiveness” should not enter public and policy conversation as often as it does. Yes, one may be able to “cost” violence roughly. But, at what ethical cost? When we measure serious social problems largely in the terms of profit-and-loss, we risk becoming economic extremists. I mean, which God died and made double-entry bookkeeping the new religion?
“What is the financial cost of people being traumatised?” What sort of society is able to pose this question, but one of financial fundamentalists?
Yes. Of course. I understand that economic arguments need to be made for policies that cost money. A politician, business leader or advocate can no longer “sell” an idea, good or bad, without the promise of future growth or profit. But, gee, this accounting has become so widespread, and so normal even for us, that it is seen as a holy tally of justice. This is our new religion; one stripped of all the most basic human principles even old religions acknowledge.
Why am I banging on about this? Well, first, I am generally irritated at the thought of life increasingly governed by ledgers. I am annoyed that there is such faith in economic “reason” we are blinded, like religious zealots, to the human reality this “reason” describes.
Second, this week, was delivered on the “cost” of poor education outcomes. Many outlets ran with the story that future economic growth would be curbed to the tune of billions if kids in state schools continue to receive dodgy, under-funded lessons. To be fair, the discusses more than the headline it produced.
To be fair to those who are not yet adults, could we quit calculating the future solely in the terms of GDP?
The job market changes and diminishes at such a rate, no one is really sure about the “future” for which kids should be educated. But, everyone, more or less, seems to be sure that the real goal of education is to produce adults who can participate in the economy.
If you reckon I haven’t thought about public debt in my fantasy education scenario, you’d be wrong. We can go way further into national debt here in Australia than we have, and, anyhow, our truly . We as individuals are so deep into debt for a range of reasons, and one of them is the stupid cost of stupid houses in decent school zones, and another is the stupid cost of stupid private education. It’s all so stupid, some parents lose the time, energy and faith for the “better future” education promises, while others with a little more wealth work themselves into debt, and, probably resentment.
And, all the while, the job market changes and diminishes at such a rate, no one is really sure about the “future” for which kids should be educated. But, everyone, more or less, seems to be sure that the real goal of education is to produce adults who can participate in the economy. You know, so they can contribute to the GDP, which appears to be our new word for “God”.
But. Wait. Hang the expense (we, can, you know; no one is really demanding that we pay our deficit) and all of that accounting. Education not only cannot be measured chiefly in the terms of its value to the economy—no one knows what work will exist in twenty years, but everyone knows it will be very different—but, it should not.
A cost-benefit analysis just will not truly analyse a load of stuff. What is the “cost” of curbing family violence? I don’t care. What is the “cost” of forming the urged for by a majority of Aboriginal people? I don’t care. What is the “cost” of a democratic and liberal education for every child with every sort of ability? I really don’t care. I care only to live in a society that values the “free things” it says are the best to the extent it permits everyone to have them.
Love. Sunsets. Contentment. Health. A way to understand oneself, the world and others. I guess these are the best free things people talk about. In our present society, these things cannot be freely enjoyed without cost—education, land and even physical safety are necessary for their enjoyment. But cost, in so many cases, is no measure. Hang the expense. Fund the future. Fund a future and hope for a future that may move beyond the brutal and simple religion of cost.
Read these too
We're working harder but we're getting poorer
