Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
When people have the choice to go elsewhere yet don't, it's a sign that competition is working.
When your options are to go to a school, or go to the same school with a Swedish curriculum, who are competing over what? How does the competing alter the behavior of the competitors? How do you decide who's winning?

BTW I looked up the numbers. Of the "comprehensive schools" basic education, grades 1-12,less than one per cent go to specialized schools:
http://www.stat.fi/til/kjarj/2016/kj...ie_001_en.html

Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
We want things to be where a marginal shift in consumption results in the need for innovation by producers. 5% going elsewhere than the nearest school might be more than enough to get that.
What innovation? If your native tongue is swedish or english, you'll probably opt for an international school with teaching in your language, if available. This could be either a public or a private school. Otherwise you'll most likely go to the assigned one. The small amount of "innovation" I can think of is starting a school or courses in a language not yet available.

The only competition that exists is between the private and the public schools. Are you saying that the government is through competition providing a better service?

Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
I think we are overly concerned about this. The trend is always that technology is speculated to reducing employment opportunities, yet each time technology increases them. Maybe eventually things will be different, but the way things are now and will be for a long time is that technology is not pushing simple skills out, in aggregate.
It's already happening, kids starting school these days will face an entirely different market when they graduate.

http://europe.newsweek.com/robot-eco...g-526467?rm=eu

Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
I wish I bookmarked the awesome calculator I was using that showed this exponential quality in action. If somebody invests a proportion of their income, a dollar earned at age 15 is hugely bigger than a dollar earned at age 25. A dollar earned at age 15 can be many times a dollar earned at age 55.

I'm sure it's been quantified somewhere. I wonder how how much wages would have to increase for those who do 10th-"16th" grade in order for there to no longer be an opportunity cost to just instead working, assuming the same proportion of income invested. Of course, those numbers will probably be skewed in favor of the formal education group due to the crowding out effect that a society with such emphasis on formal education has.
Money is a means to an end, not the end goal. Increased income has diminishing returns on quality of life and happiness.