I don't see why this would be the case. Privatisation is good for everyone. There have been lots of cases of government run services not being able to be paid for and the private sector stepping in and turning them around. Would taking over food production be good for everyone too? Poor people aren't able to afford food!
Which is basically what it means for a degree to be 'worthless'. It's like you think those two things are different and it's only there being no jobs which makes the degrees worthless, as though there could be a case where you have 'worthless' degrees but enough jobs for those degrees to be applied to.
No it is not. That sentence is not even remotely true. Privatization is good for entrepreneurs with capital, it's good for people with money, but it fecks the poor. In theory capitalism sounds nice: Competition drives prices down and increases the quality of the service. Communism also sounds nice in theory: Abolish the classes, everyone gets their share. We both know though that neither of those works as good in practice as in theory.
As several people have said here: If you privatize something the people running it are ultimately in it for the profit and even if they were the most idealistic people in existence and only sought to break even you would have two options: 1. It's super cheap so everyone could afford it, which would make it a really shit service. 2. It's more expensive which means a large portion of the population can't afford it.
By the way, almost all private schools receive handsome federal/state payouts but tuition fees have gone so much up the last years that only the upper middle class and up can afford it. You then get a system where the wealthy kids gets a premium education and goes onto get a well paying job and at the same time you have hordes of unskilled laborers who will have to fight over the scraps. Not only does this hinder social mobility it also keeps the wages for unskilled labor artificially low because there is so much competition for the jobs. Right wingers like to blame the immigrants, but if the national workforce is highly skilled/educated the pressure for these jobs is much less severe.
Then you have secondary, non economic effects like adults in developed countries not having basic skills in things like math and reading. Having a lot of people who can't even read or write is NOT a recipe for a functioning society and i'd much rather have a couple of people with "useless" art degrees working in retail than someone who can't properly read.
Finland is a Scandinavian country. Sounds like we are agreeing anyway.
Not trying to be pedantic here, but Finland is not a Scandinavian country (Norway, Sweden and Denmark are) Finland along with Iceland and the three others make up the Nordic countries. May sound like splitting hairs here, but Finland are better than the Scandinavian countries in education by quite a large margin and often top world wide rankings along with countries like Japan and South Korea, while "we" are pretty average even by European standards.
How they did it is complicated, but they basically made/kept teaching a well respected and well paid occupation, which in turn kept it's high status and made sure the brightest minds sought to apply for it.
Edit: They also reduced the amount of bureaucratic bullshit teachers had to deal with, gave teachers much more freedom in curriculum and how they presented it and maybe most importantly almost completely abolished competitive testing among students.
