Well moreso than to the ditch diggers and burger flippers anyway.

The article has a point regarding education, but the always tricky question is how to transform govt money in education into the kinds and quality of education that will be helpful.

Instead of a BLS (Basic Living Stipend) as the author suggests, I would prefer a universal education stipend if anything. Mostly do away with "public education" which I consider a colossal failure and replace it with a public grant system especially at lower grades, and scaling up to performance based at collegiate levels. (maybe not as much of a failure as having no public education would have been, at the time it was implemented - my point being not to eliminate all public from education but rather fundamentally change the way it is implemented).

If there was a very large pool of disposable money for education, then we would see a lot more capable people competing for that money. I think one of the great challenges of the 21st century is figuring out, and gaining public acceptance of, mechanisms whereby the Hayekian model and purpose of market economics (that is, markets and demand signal to the economic world at large which things are actually desired and needed, how badly, and of what quality and amount ) with a social contract structure that enshrines a more Rawlsian conception of equal opportunity.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)