Where Does the Money Go?

This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.

I recently came across a report that claimed New York City’s Department of Education spent $37,136 per student in 2022.

Now, assuming this report is accurate, where did all that money go? The average class size in New York City is 25. Twenty-five times $37,136 equals $928,400. The starting teacher salary is $61,070, and the maximum teacher salary is $119,335. Even if we add an additional 50 percent to those salaries to account for healthcare, retirement, and other benefits, only 10-20 percent of the money allocated to the typical classroom goes to the teacher. So again I ask: where did all that money go?

It’s certainly not going to the production of enviable test results. Here is how New York City’s kids did on the statewide exams in 2022:

And here is how New York City’s kids stacked up against kids from my state on the SAT in 2021:

To be fair to New York City, a far greater percentage of its kids take the SAT than North Carolina’s. So a large degree of selection bias is at play here, and if North Carolina’s participation rate were similar to New York City’s, North Carolina’s SAT lead wouldn’t be nearly as great. But the fact remains: New York City spends a lot of money to get some pretty dismal education results.

The Puzzle of Government

The glorious ineptitude of New York City’s public schools doesn’t surprise me. Every government, from the lowly Department of Public Works in bumf*#k Iowa all the way up to the mighty federal government, is saddled with a very vexing inherent flaw that makes good government very difficult to achieve.

What’s that very vexing inherent flaw? Conscripted customers. Every government agency or department, whether it operates as a monopoly or not, has the power to tax. It gets guaranteed revenue regardless of how well it does its job.

Now a question: If you worked for an organization that had conscripted customers and guaranteed revenue, would you be more likely or less likely to put your needs before your customers’ needs?

If you said you’d be more likely, go straight to the head of the class. Providing outstanding service isn’t easy. It requires a lot of sweat, toil, sacrifice, inconvenience, and confrontation. And most people aren’t willing to suffer that degree of discomfort unless they have to.

Politicians and bureaucrats don’t have to endure the indignities of excellence to keep their jobs. So it shouldn’t come to anyone’s surprise that they put their needs before the taxpayers’ needs.

In my erstwhile corner of government, a rinky-dink highway department on Long Island, the primary need of management was to funnel as much money as possible to the Republican Party. The primary need of labor was to be the recipient of “high-class welfare”—that is, to be the recipient of great pay and benefits for a lot of sloth and half-assed work. And I’m sorry to report that both management and labor were very successful at satisfying their primary needs.

What are the primary needs of management and labor in New York City’s Department of Education? I’m sure “high-class welfare” is a top contender. And I’m sure funneling as much money as possible to the Democrat Party is a top contender too. All those juicy “diversity, equity, and inclusion” consulting gigs aren’t being awarded without a sufficient amount of reciprocity (i.e., campaign donations). What isn’t a top contender, however, is being considerate of the taxpayer’s wallet. Nor is giving kids the education they need to competently navigate a world that is being revolutionized by robots and artificial intelligence.

What I described above is something I call the puzzle of government. How do we get politicians and bureaucrats to care about the legitimate needs of the governed when politicians and bureaucrats don’t have to? In other words, how do we get the government to pursue excellence—to do better with less tax dollars? How do we get New York City’s Department of Education, for example, to only spend $20,000 per student and maintain or increase the percentage of its students who are proficient in math and English?

The puzzle of government should be the main focus of the voters every election season. But it isn’t. No politician is ever asked how he or she would mitigate the inherent flaw of government. And that’s because the typical voter hasn’t been groomed to contemplate the inherent flaw of government (thank you, government schools). The typical voter has been groomed to see his or her selfish needs as legitimate and to see the government as Santa Claus. Accordingly, the typical voter’s understanding of the inherent flaw of government is about as sophisticated as a Medieval barber’s understanding of medicine.

To paraphrase Theodoric of York:

Wait a minute. Perhaps I got this voting thing all wrong. Perhaps I shouldn’t be blindly following the “what’s in it for me” voting traditions of the past several generations. Maybe we voters shouldn’t be voting for the politicians who promise us the most welfare and privilege. Maybe we voters should be voting for the politicians who offer the most plausible ways of mitigating the corrosive effects that conscripted customers and guaranteed revenue have on governing. Maybe we voters could then measure whatever “mitigation method” is tried against benchmarks that are suitable and measurable. And maybe we voters, with ruthless devotion to results rather than party, can find the mitigation methods that make government more efficient, more impartial, and more likely to tell the agents of crony capitalism and crony socialism to shove it. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age of selflessness, an age where the general welfare is enshrined and the specific welfare is loathed, a political Renaissance! Naaaaaahhh!

Final Thoughts

Okay, groovy freedomist, that’s all I got. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Peace.